Upload
khangminh22
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Université de Montréal
Towards a New Qur’ânic Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical and
Intertextual Approaches: The Case of the Crucifixion of Jesus in the
Tafâsîr of Eight Muslim Exegetes
par
Shahram Nahidi
Faculté de théologie et de sciences des religions
Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures
en vue de l’obtention du grade de
Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.)
en Sciences des religions
avril 2013
© Shahram Nahidi, 2013
Abstract
The Qur’ân, together with the sunnah (tradition) of the Prophet Muḥammad recounted in
aḥâdîth (oral traditions of the Prophet), form the eternal source of inspiration and knowledge
upon which the Muslim communities have acted and reacted to, as well as interacted with.
Externally, their relations with many others, including Christians, have followed the same
dynamics, as seen in the mirror of the Qur’ân and its interpretations. The topics of the divine
nature of Jesus, the trinity, and the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross, have been
commonly considered the three main theological points of disagreement between Muslims
and Christians. The Qur’ân’s clear position vis-à-vis the first two points do not leave any
space for scholarly debates. However, despite Muslims’ actual consensus on denying Jesus’
crucifixion and death, the Qur’ânic ambiguous image of Jesus’ last day on earth has caused
many discussions among mufassirûn (exegetes of the Qur’ân). This thesis is a textual
analysis of the two Qur’ânic passages on this debated point of difference. For this textual
and intertextual study, the tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’ân) of eight mufassirûn
belonging to different madhâhib (schools of interpretation) from various periods in the
history of Muslim-Christian relations are used in combination with recent textual approaches
and methods such as: historico-citical and redaction critical. In addition, three new theories
developed within this dissertation complete the hermeneutical tools employed for this
research: the “theory of five layers of meaning,” the “theory of double messages of the
Qur’ân,” and the “theory of humans’ tripartite nature.” In the light of these theories and
methods, it emerges that the Qur’ânic ambiguity on Jesus’ crucifixion and death may well be
the Qur’ân’s own invitation to Muslims and Christians to live with that unresolvable
ambiguity. This dissertation’s conclusion thus contributes directly to better Muslim-
Christian relations, reinforcing the Qur’ânic call to both Muslims and Christians (Qur’ân
3:64, 103) to focus on major common points, to embrace minor differences, and to spend
their energy on what might have a positive impact on their harmonious co-habitation,
abandoning the rest in the hands of God in whom both believe.
Keywords: Qur’ân 3:55 and 4:157; Jesus; Crucifixion; Death; tafsîr; nabawî; nafs; rûḥ;
Hermeneutics; Intertextual and Historico-critical Approaches.
iii
Résumé
Le Coran et la Sunna (la tradition du prophète Muḥammad) relatée dans les aḥâdîth (les
traditions orales du Prophète) représentent la source éternelle d’inspiration et de savoir à
laquelle les Musulmans se réfèrent pour agir, réagir et interagir. Par le fait même, tout au
long de l’histoire musulmane, ces sources sacrées ont été à la base des relations des
Musulmans avec autrui, incluant les Chrétiens. Les trois éléments majeurs de
différenciation entre l’islam et le christianisme sont : la nature divine de Jésus, la trinité
ainsi que la crucifixion et la mort de Jésus sur la croix. La position tranchée du Coran
quant aux deux premiers points ne laisse place à aucun débat académique. Cependant,
l’ambiguïté du texte coranique quant à la crucifixion de Jésus et sa mort a favorisé de
nombreux débats entre mufassirûn (les exégètes du Coran). Cette thèse est une analyse
textuelle des deux passages coraniques qui traitent de cette troisième différence. Pour
cette étude textuelle et intertextuelle, les tafâsîr (interprétations du Coran) de huit
mufassirûn appartenant à différentes madhâhib (écoles d’interprétation) et périodes de
l’histoire des relations musulmanes-chrétiennes sont utilisés en combinaison avec
certaines approches et méthodes récentes telles que : historico-critique et critique
rédactionnelle. De plus, trois nouvelles théories développées dans la thèse enrichissent les
outils herméneutiques de la recherche : la « théorie des cinq couches de sens », la
« théorie des messages coraniques doubles » et la « théorie de la nature humaine
tripartite ». À la lumière de ces théories et méthodes, il apparaît que l’ambiguïté
coranique au sujet de la crucifixion et de la mort de Jésus est une invitation claire de la
part du Coran incitant les Musulmans et les Chrétiens à vivre avec cette ambiguïté
insoluble. La conclusion de cette thèse contribue directement à de meilleures relations
musulmanes-chrétiennes, renforçant l’appel coranique (Coran 3:64, 103) à ces deux
communautés leurs demandant de se cramponner aux points communs majeurs,
d’intégrer leurs différences mineures et de consacrer leurs énergies pour une vie
harmonieuse entre eux et laisser le reste dans les mains du Dieu qu’ils ont en commun.
Mots-clés : Coran 3 :55 et 4:157; Jésus; Crucifixion; Mort; tafsîr; nabawî; nafs; rûḥ;
Herméneutique; Approches Intertextuelle et Historico-critique.
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Résumé iii
Table of Contents iv
Preface xv
0 Introduction 1
0.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….. 1
0.2 Scope of the Thesis ………………………………………………………………….. 3
0.3 Limit of the Thesis …………………………………………………………………... 8
0.4 The Question of Approaches, Theories, and Methods …..………………………..... 10
0.4.1 The New Critical Methods ……………………………………………….. 12
0.4.2 The Comparative Contextual Method and the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite
Nature …………………………………………………………………………... 13
0.4.3 The Theory of Double Messages of the Qur’ân ………………………….. 14
0.4.4 The Historico-critical Theory and the Redaction Critical Method ………. 15
0.4.5 Two Important Clarifications …………….………………………….....… 16
0.4.6 The Historico-critical Method and New Criticism …………………….… 18
0.5 Outline of the Thesis ……………………………………………………………….. 20
1 The Qur’ân and its Hermeneutics: First Steps Towards a New Interpretation of
Muslims’ Sacred Text 23
1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 23
1.2 The Qur’ân ……………………………………………………………………….… 25
1.2.1 The Compilation of the Qur’ân …………………………………….…….. 34
1.3 The ḥadîth ………………………………………………………………………….. 39
1.4 The tafsîr …………………………………………………………………………… 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
1.5 First Case Study: The Qur’ân Between Proper Noun and Concept …………..……. 54
1.6 Second Case Study: Muslim Disciples of Jesus ………………………………..….. 60
1.6.1 Part One: Two âyahs on the Disciples of Jesus ……………………….…. 60
1.6.1.1 Ṭabarî’s Version …………………...…………………………… 63
1.6.1.2 Ibn Kathîr’s Version ……………………………………………. 67
1.6.1.3 Ṭabarî, Ibn Kathîr, and Their Socio-Political Contexts ………... 69
1.6.1.4 A Telegraphical Style Comparison between Two tafâsîr ……... 71
1.6.2 Part Two: Does Christian, as an Identity, Exist in the Qur’ân? …..……... 73
1.6.3 Does Muslim, as an Identity, Exist in the Qur’ân? …………………...…. 79
2 On Themes, Topics, and Subdivisions in the Qur’ân 87
2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 87
2.2 The Sciences of the Qur’ân ………………………………………………………… 88
2.3 Different Subdivisions of the Qur’ânic Text ….…………………………….….….. 90
2.3.1 The Subdivision of the Qur’ânic Text into juz’, ḥizb, and rub‘ …….……. 93
2.3.1.1 A Feminist Hypothesis .……………..…………………….……. 96
2.3.2 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into Meccan and Medinan ………….. 99
2.3.2.1 The subdivision of Qur’ânic sûrahs into Meccan and Medinan .100
2.3.3 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic sûrahs According to Their Length ……..... 102
2.3.4 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into muḥkam and mutashâbih ….…. 104
2.3.5 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into nâsikh and mansûkh ………….. 107
2.3.6 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into ‘âmm and khâṣṣ .………….….. 111
2.3.7 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into indhâr and tabshîr …………… 114
2.4 Some Implications of Subdividing the Qur’ân …………………………………… 115
2.5 The Theory of Five Layers of Meaning or the Soul of the Text ……………….…. 119
2.6 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into nabawî and rasûlî or the Theory of Double
Messages of the Qur’ân ………………………………………………………..…. 128
2.6.1 The Term nabî in the Qur’ân …………………………………………… 133
2.6.2 The Term rasûl in the Qur’ân ………………………………….……….. 143
2.7 inzâl versus tanzîl …………………………………………………………………. 156
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
3 On nafs, rûḥ, and the Question of tawaffâ and mawt in the Qur’ân 181
3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 181
3.2 The self ……………………………………………………………………………. 181
3.2.1 al-nafs …………………………………………………………………… 186
3.2.2 nafs versus rûḥ ………………………………………………………….. 199
3.2.3 rûḥ versus nafs ………………………………………………………….. 205
3.2.4 nafs, rûḥ, and the Qur’ânic Theory of nafs …………………….……….. 206
3.3 Death in the Qur’ân, and the Question of mawt and tawaffâ ……………...……… 216
3.3.1 mawt and Its Definitions ………………………………………………... 218
3.3.2 tawaffâ and Its Definitions …………………………………….….…….. 220
3.3.3 The Qur’ânic Image of Death through mawt …………….……….…….. 221
3.3.3.1 mawt and qatl …………………………………………………. 222
3.3.3.2 mawt and the Question of Decomposition ……………………. 224
3.3.3.3 mawt and the Question of Subject …………………………….. 227
3.3.4 The Qur’ânic Image of Death through tawaffâ …………………….…… 228
3.3.4.1 tawaffâ and the Question of Subject ………………………….. 230
3.3.4.2 tawaffâ and the Question of Body ……………………….……. 235
3.4 mawt, tawaffâ, and the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite Nature ……………….…… 240
4 The Case of the Crucifixion of Jesus in the tafâsîr of Eight Muslim Exegetes:
an Example for a New Hermeneutics of the Qur’ân 250
4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 250
4.2 The Selection of tafâsîr …………………………………………………………… 251
4.3 A Short Biography of the Selected mufassirûn with Their Respective Historical
Contexts ………………………………………………………………………………. 254
4.3.1 Wahb Ibn Munabbih ……………………………………………………. 254
4.3.2 Ṭabarî …………………………………………………………………… 258
4.3.3 Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib .……...……………………………………………. 259
4.3.4 Qurṭubî ………………………………………………………………….. 261
4.3.5 Ibn Kathîr ……………………………………………………………….. 263
4.3.6 Suyûṭî …………………………………………………………………… 264
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
4.3.7 Ṭabâṭabâ’î ………………………………………………………………. 267
4.3.8 Jazâ’irî …………………………………………………………………... 269
4.4 Jesus and the Story Tellers in the Islamic Tradition ……………………………… 271
4.5 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus ................................ 275
4.5.1 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ṭabarî’s
tafsîr …............................................................................................................... 276
4.5.2 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Makkî Ibn
Abi Ṭâlib’s tafsîr……...……………………………………………………….. 284
4.5.3 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Qurṭubî’s
tafsîr…………………………………………………………………………… 287
4.5.4 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ibn Kathîr’s
tafsîr…………………………………………………………………………… 291
4.5.5 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Suyûṭî’s
tafsîr …………………………………………………………………………... 295
4.5.6 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s
tafsîr …………………………………………………………………………... 301
4.5.7 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Jazâ’irî’s
tafsîr…………………………………………………………………………… 304
4.6 A New tafsîr of the Crucifixion of Jesus Based on the Theory of Double Messages of
the Qur’ân …………………………………………………………………………….. 307
4.7 Re-understanding Jesus’ tawaffâ Through the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite
Nature …………………………………………………………………………………..325
Conclusion 329
Bibliography 334
Preface
In May 2005, while doing a second Master’s degree at Wilfrid Laurier University
(Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), I presented a paper entitled Jesus’ crucifixion in the Qur’ân
at the annual regional meeting of the American Academy of Religion’s Eastern
International Regional conference in Montreal, Canada. A few months later, I enrolled as
a Ph.D. candidate at the Université de Montréal, focusing my research on the same topic
and presenting its results in this doctoral dissertation. When I started the redaction of this
thesis, its title was The Crucifixion of Jesus in Qur’ânic Exegesis (tafsîr) and the Science
of Tradition (‘ilm al-ḥadîth): Towards a New Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical
and Intertextual Approaches. The more my research progressed, the more I was
convinced that my simple theories and discoveries on Jesus’ crucifixion in the Qur’ân can
be applied to the rest of the Qur’ânic text as well, and used as hermeneutical tools for a
better understanding of the Qur’ân’s multilayered messages. In the middle of this long
journey, I realized that I had consecrated most of my time on developing and presenting
ideas that could help the devout reader of the Qur’ânic text grasp better what the text has
to offer beyond its historical and contextual boundaries. For that matter, Jesus’
crucifixion was only a par excellence example. Thus, during the redaction of my second
chapter on different Qur’ânic subdivisions within which I present my theory of double
messages of the Qur’ân, I reversed the title of my thesis to its present one: Towards a
New Qur’ânic Hermeneutics Based on Historico-Critical and Intertextual Approaches:
The Case of the Crucifixion of Jesus in the Tafâsîr of Eight Muslim Exegetes.
Useful information before reading
In this thesis, the translation of Qur’ânic âyahs mainly comes from Marmaduk Pickthall’s
The Glorious Qur’ân: An Explanatory Translation. The edition I use was published in
2000 by Tahrike Tarsil Qur’ân Inc. An online version of it is also available at
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/. In some cases, in order to compare translations, I
PREFACE
ix
use other versions in English, French or Persian, and they are clearly identified in the
footnotes. Apart from those translations of the Qur’ân, all other sources utilized for this
thesis are in their original language whether Arabic, English, French or Persian, and all
passages translated into English are the result of my own translation except when the
translated text is part of a direct citation from an English source.
In this thesis, the transliteration of Arabic into English follows the method of the
U.S. Library of Congress with the six following exceptions:1
1. For long vowels, circumflex is used instead of macron. (i.e. Qur’ân instead of Qur’ān)
2. Circumflex is used for alif maqsûrah. (i.e. ‘Isâ instead of ‘Isā)
3. Common Arabic names formed of the composition of a noun with Allâh are written as
one word. (i.e. ‘Abdullâh instead of ‘Abd-Allâh)
4. Ibn is transliterated as b., except where it comes at the beginning of a name or if it is
commonly recognized as a popular name to identify a person.
5. In compound nouns, the definite article of al is not conjugated except if it is a part of a
cited sentence in Arabic. (i.e. always ahl al-kitâb)
6. When the definite article of al is attached to a letter of ḥurûf al-shamsiyyah, the
transliteration does not follow the pronounciation but it respects the written form. (i.e. al-
nafs instead of an-nafs)
In this thesis, for the plural form of some popular Arabic terms such as âyah,
sûrah or sunnah, sometime a small s is added to the end of the term. For the less popular
terms such as tafsîr, mufassir, mutakallim, muḥâddith or ḥadîth the Arabic plural form is
used. To facilitate the reading, for Arabic terms that have several plural forms such as
nabî a small s is added to the end of the term.
In this thesis, the transliteration of an Arabic term and/or name reflects its
phonetics in Arabic, and the transliteration of the same term and/or name in Persian
reflects its phonetics in Persian. For example, the first name for Zam who is a Persian
writing author is recorded as Mohammad Ali, and the same first name for Ibn Jazrî who
is an Arabic writing author is recorded as Muḥammad ‘Ali.
1
This method is available online at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/arabic.pdf (consulted on
September 1st 2012).
PREFACE
x
In this thesis, the birth year and/or the death year of Muslims who have lived
before the twentieth century are marked using the hijra calendar. Also, the birth year
and/or the death year of non-Muslims as well as those years for Muslims who have lived
through the twentieth century are recorded using the Common Era calendar.
In this thesis, apart from direct citations from English sources, wherever a non-
English term is mentioned, if a translation is judged necessary, it appears in parenthesis
after the term. In a few cases this order is reversed for rhetorical purposes.
In this thesis, wherever there are numbers separated from each other by a colon,
they represent one or some Qur’ânic âyahs. The number before the colon represents the
number of the sûrah, and the number or numbers after the colon represent(s) the number
of âyah or âyahs in that sûrah.
1
Introduction
0.1 Introduction
As Daniel A. Madigan mentions in his book The Qur’ân’s Self Image, Islam is
considered by many scholars as “the most fully developed example” of a religion formed
by a scripture1 and shaped around a sacred text.
2 Years before Madigan, his teacher
William A. Graham wrote:
The major importance of the written text of scripture in Islam is apparent
even to the casual observer in any Islamic society. The centrality of the
sacred book in Islam represents … in many respects the culmination of the
long Near Eastern tradition of the divinely revealed, authoritative written
book. The importance of the book of scripture in Muslim faith and practice
is especially closely related to, and in significant part derived from, the
emphasis on holy writ in Islam’s older sibling traditions of Judaic and
Christian piety. Because Islam is not just one of the three major “book
religions”, but in many ways even the most radical of the three in the
exalted place that it assigns to its book, both ritually and theologically, it is
not amiss to speak of the Qur’ân as the prototypical “book of scripture”.3
Graham followed the tradition of his own teacher Wilfred Cantwell Smith who, from the
very beginning of the emergence of the modern study of Islam in the West, had clarified
that the scholarly path towards the understanding of Islam and Muslims necessarily
passes through the study of the sacred text in Islam, the Qur’ân.4
1 As a technical term, “scripture” is only recently used in scholarly works to refer to “sacred text” or
“divine word” of faiths other than Christianity. For centuries this English term and its equivalents in other
Western languages such as French, German, Spanish and Italian were exclusively used to refer to the Bible.
For more details, see Jane D. McAuliffe, “The Introduction.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ân.
Edited by Jane. D. McAuliffe, 1-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
2 Daniel A. Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image: Writing and Authority in Islam’s Scripture. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2001 (p. 4). 3 William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987 (p. 79).
4 See, for example, William C. Smith, “Scripture as Form and Concept: Their Emergence for the Western
World.” In Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective. Edited by Miriam Levering, 29-
57. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
INTRODUCTION
2
This emphasis on the centrality of the Qur’ân, and thus traditional Qur’ânic
studies, passed down through this silsilah (chain) of Western scholars, has come in
reaction to the growing importance of non-textual approaches in the academic study of
Islam since the last quarter of the twentieth century, which has emerged from a variety of
disciplines other than Religious Studies. For example, Clifford Geertz’ ethnographical
approach in anthropology reached a wide audience from the 1970s onwards, far beyond
its initial discipline. More recently, the launch of “Muslim Studies” as an
interdisciplinary “option” within the Religious Studies program at Wilfrid Laurier
University in Ontario, Canada, to give but one programmatic example, reflects this trend
to study Islam without any emphasis on its sacred text.5 In that program, students can
concentrate their studies on Islam and/or Muslims without needing to do any textual
studies or training in the Arabic language. This development in Islamic Studies comes
from the growing number of multi-disciplinary approaches used to understand especially
contemporary Muslims, and thereby Islam. These more recent scholarly efforts have born
important intellectual fruits. In fact, this increase in the variety of approaches affecting
Islamic Studies opens up more theoretical choices in how to go about studying the Qur’ân
too. The resulting growth in interdisciplinarity brings new challenges and opportunities to
the study of Muslims’ sacred text, stimulating a renewed creativity in Qur’ânic Studies
today, integrating both traditional and modern sciences. In his 1992 review of two major
books on Jesus in the Qur’ân, Andrew Rippin writes:
In all the scholarly attention given to the Qur’ân no subject has drawn as
much attention as Jesus and Christianity. The motives behind such studies
are clear and the need to keep refreshing the views they express is
apparent, given changing world situations, church policies and increased
inter-faith activity. The most difficult part of the exercise in the
contemporary context is finding a new approach to the material.6
This dissertation is my effort to respond to that “difficult part of the exercise,” choosing
5 For Geertz’ approach, see Clifford Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive
Anthropology. 3rd
ed. New York: Basic Books, 2000. For the option of Muslim Studies at Wilfrid Laurier
University, see their Official web site at www.wlu.ca (consulted on Sep. 1st 2011).
6 Andrew Rippin. “Review of Qur’ânic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis by Jane
Dammen McAuliffe; Christ in Islam and Christianity; The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’ân and the
Classical Muslim Commentaries by Neal Robinson.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, vol. 55, No. 2 (1992): 321-323 (p. 321).
INTRODUCTION
3
one of the main points of disagreement between Muslims and Christians: the crucifixion
of Jesus and his death in the Qur’ân.
0.2 Scope of the Thesis
“Jesus in the Qur’ân” is a subject matter that has enormously contributed to the formation
of a Muslim generic system of “religious Others,”7 which has had a direct impact on
interfaith relations between Muslims and Christians throughout history. The quantity of
existing literature on this subject is astounding. Most of it is focused on three key points
of difference between Christian christology and Muslim perception of Jesus: 1) his nature
being divine or fully human, 2) his being the son of God or the servant/prophet of God,
and 3) his crucifixion and death being true or false. The first two issues are tightly
interrelated, and the third one benefits from a more independent nature. Down the
centuries, the best part of the above-mentioned literature, on both Christian and Muslim
sides of this interreligious discussion, has focused on one of the two first issues and/or on
a combination of both of them. The third issue, however, appears less in the above-
mentioned literature, and the discussions around it seem to have been carried out with
less analytical depth. This, in part, might be because of the ambiguity of Muslims’ textual
sacred sources of information, including the Qur’ân and the ḥadîth, on the subject of
Jesus’ end on earth. Consequently, despite the theological importance of Jesus’
crucifixion and his resurrection from death for Christians, the theological significance of
this belief by Christians has been unjustly underplayed by Muslim erudites over the
centuries. Indeed, one can difficultly find Muslim scholarly writings (apologetic or not)
on concepts such as “the original sin” or “salvation” directly related to the belief in Jesus’
crucifixion, death, and resurrection in Christianity. As a matter of fact, most Muslim
writings on the topic of Jesus’ crucifixion and death show interest only in discussing the
question of its historicity, or not, rather than its theological implications and potential
applications. The Christian writings, whether academic or apologetic, also focus before
anything else on the same question of its historicity. In a way, most Christian and Muslim
scholarly writings on this topic end up mirroring each other rhetorically, resulting in what
7 Patrice Brodeur, From an Islamic Heresiography to an Islamic History of Religions: Modern Arab
Muslim Literature on ‘Religious Others’. Ph.D. Diss. Harvard University, 1999 (pp. 27-9).
INTRODUCTION
4
some call a dialogue of the deaf.
The vast literature on the topic of Jesus’ crucifixion and death in Islam can be
classified into three categories: 1) those works that aim to prove the Qur’ân’s acceptance
of Jesus’ crucifixion and/or death; 2) those writings that try to prove the Qur’ânic denial
of Jesus’ crucifixion and/or death; and 3) those researches that put an emphasis on the
ambiguity of the Qur’ân about the crucifixion and the death of Jesus. Some works
belonging to this last category aim to demonstrate that the actual consensus on the denial
of Jesus’ crucifixion did not exist among early Muslims and/or mufassirûn; it was a
historical phenomenon that gradually emerged out of different historical contexts
including various socio-political contexts of Muslim-Christian relations through centuries
of interactions.
The first category is probably the most apologetic one. In this category, Christian
scholars and missionaries resort to almost anything to build their arguments, from false
translations of the Qur’ân to the misuse of incomplete bits and pieces of âyahs. As an
example of this category, in an article entitled The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive? Gabriel
Said Reynolds contends “that the Quran rather accepts that Jesus died, and indeed alludes
to his role as a witness against his murderers in the apocalypse.”8 He builds his
conviction on different arguments among which two are intertextual. His first intertextual
argument reads as follows:
Sûrat al-mâîda (5) 17 asks, “If God desired to take the life (yuhlika) of
Jesus the Son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth, who could
resist Him?” Here the Quran implies that the death of Jesus –like all
deaths– was the act of God. Elsewhere in this same Sûra the Quran notes:
“Jesus, son of Mary, is only a Messenger. Messengers have passed away
before him” (Q 5.75). Once again this is a formula, in this case a formula
applied elsewhere to the Quran’s own prophet: “Muḥammad is only a
Messenger. Messengers have passed away before him” (Q 3.144).9
Here, to build his argument, Reynolds cuts 5:17 into two pieces and only mentions the
second part of a conditional paragraph. The whole 5:17 reads:
8 Gabriel Said Reynolds, “The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies, vol. 72, Issue 02 (June 2009): 237-258 (p. 237).
9 Ibid., 239.
INTRODUCTION
5
هو ٱلمسيح ٱبن مريم من لقد ڪفر ٱلذين قالوا إن ٱلل من يم شيـ ا إن أراد أن قٱلل
ه ٱلمسيح ٱبن مريم وأم ا يه وٱلرض وما بيهما ۥ ومن ى ٱلرض جميع وت ـو م ٱلس م ولل ي
شىء قدير ما يشاء ىو وٱلل
They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of
Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to
destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth?
Allah’s is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is
between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all
things.10
It is clear that 5:17 is therefore about the Christian belief in the divine nature of Jesus,
and in order to deny it, the Qur’ân argues that Allâh has the power of destroying
everybody including Jesus and his mother, and no one can stop him from doing so if
Allâh wills it. Besides this example of cutting an âyah into pieces, Reynolds juxtaposes
two very different verbs of yuhlika (destroys) in 5:17 with khalat (passed away) in 5:75
and 3:144 to prove that according to the Qur’ân Jesus has died. None of these two verbs
refer to the clear Qur’ânic term for death, which is mawt (the verbal noun of mâta
meaning to die) or even to the debatable term of tawaffâ that some mufassirûn have
considered as a reference to a level of death.
Reynolds’ second intertextual argument is built around this last Qur’ânic term. He
writes:
The clearest reference to Jesus’ death may be later in sûrat al-mâ’ida. In a
verse that is part of a larger dialogue (vv. 116-8) between God and Jesus,
Jesus remarks “I was a witness to them as long as I remained among them.
You became the watcher of them when you made me die (tawaffaytanî )”.
The verb tawaffâ (verbal noun: tawaffî) that appears here causes
significant confusion among Muslim exegetes. Yet the Quran itself offers
no cause for confusion. Tawaffâ appears in twenty-five passages in the
Quran, and twice in relation to Jesus (here and Q 3.55). For twenty-three
of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard
10 Here and after, except where explicitly mentioned otherwise, all translations of the Qur’ân in this
dissertation are cited from: Marmaduke Pickthall, trans. The Glorious Qur’ân. 1st ed. NewYork: Tahrike
Tarsil Qur’ân Inc., 2000, available online at http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/. Mohammed
Marmaduke Pickthall (1875-1936C.E.) is considered a western scholar of Islam. Although was a convert
from Christianity to Islam, he was considered as a spiritual leader for many Muslims of his entourage. His
translation of the Qur’ân, first published in 1930, was immediately approved by al-Azhar authorities, and
became very popular among English speaking Muslims. His literal translation is among the most accurate
translations of the Qur’ân in English, and is still a reliable reference for scholars.
INTRODUCTION
6
definition of this term, namely God’s act of separating the soul from the
body, or making someone die.11
Here, besides the fact that many mufassirûn have considered this âyah as an apocalyptic
conversation between Allâh and Jesus after Jesus’ return and his death at the end of time
(Reynolds does mention this point later), Reynolds does not explain why, if the Qur’ân is
supposedly so clear, and as he mentions above, “offers no cause for confusion,”
mufassirûn have debated about the meaning of tawaffâ for centuries. He purports to solve
the problem by calling it a confusion and accusing mufassirûn of not seeing the clear
meaning of the term in the Qur’ân. In fact, such an argument can be used to “solve” any
problem in any sacred text written in any language by anyone. On this point, this
dissertation is one scholarly work among many other writings that prove just the contrary,
demonstrating the complexity of tawaffâ and its different usages in the Qur’ân. One last
point, but not the least problematic in Reynolds’ above argument, is that the term tawaffâ
(the fifth form of wafaya) appears 24 times in the Qur’ân, and mutawaffî, which is the
active participle of the fifth form of wafaya, appears only once. The only appearance of
this exceptional term in 3:55 is what Reynolds includes as the 25 appearances of tawaffâ.
Also a quick glance at a few tafâsîr shows to what extent Reynolds’ above statement
claiming that “For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally
follow the standard definition of this term” is far from the truth. In fact, some
appearances of tawaffâ such as in 39:42 and 47:27 have caused serious debates among
mufassirûn with more important implications in kalâm (Islamic theology) than its usages
in terms of Jesus.
The second category of works tries to prove the Qur’ân’s denial of Jesus’
crucifixion and/or his death. They suffer, more or less, from the same problem of shallow
argumentation and biased conclusions. In this category, instead of rational arguments and
intellectual efforts, Muslim scholars and imams often refer to narratives and use
preaching tones to convince their readers that Jesus was neither crucified, nor killed. An
example of such a work in this category is Ahmad Beheshtî’s book entitled Isâ, Payâm
Âvar-e Eslâm (Jesus, the Bearer of Good Tidings about Islam). To prove his conviction
11 Reynolds, “The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?,” 239.
INTRODUCTION
7
that Jesus was neither crucified nor killed, Beheshti offers several arguments. His final
proof is the following intertextual argument:
When one thinks about the list of injustices attributed to Roman soldiers,
and reads carefully some passages of the Old Testament, he concludes that
the whole event [of Jesus’ crucifixion] is absolutely fake and manipulated.
One cannot find any historical record about what happened to Jesus
[during and] after the crucifixion different from what has been narrated in
the Qur’ân and in the Gospel of Barnaba. Both the Qur’ân and the Gospel
of Barnaba report an event called by canonical Gospels as “ascension,”
and during this event Jesus is taken from people of this world. The Glory
Qur’ân says about that: “But Allâh took him up unto Himself. Allâh was
ever Mighty, Wise (Nisâ’ 158).
Thus, there is no debate on Jesus’ ascension. The debate is on if he
was ascended after he was killed or he was never killed and was taken to
the sky alive. It has been said from Imâm Ṣâdiq (peace be upon him) that
God raised Jesus with a wool cloth woven and sowed by Mary, and when
he arrived up to the sky, he was told: “O Jesus, leave the garments of the
world.” So according to this narrative, Jesus is not dead yet.12
Beheshtî does not mention where one can read “the list of injustices attributed to Roman
soldiers.” He does not mention what passages of the Old Testament must be compared to
the list of those injustices. More importantly, he does not explain how by comparing
these two, one can conclude that Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. His simplistic
narrative is as shallow as his argument, and his cutting 4:158 into pieces mirrors, in this
case for an opposite purpose, that of Reynolds’ as shown above.
The third category of works contains researches and writings that put an emphasis
on the ambiguity of the Qur’ân on Jesus’ crucifixion and death. While some of these
works lean towards one of the two sides of this argument, what makes them fall in this
third category is that they remain cautious in their final conclusions, lacking the kind of
staunch positioning on one side or the other of this argument found in the previous two
categories. One of the best examples in this category is a book by Kenneth Cragg entitled
Jesus and the Muslims.13
On the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion in 4:157, Cragg argues
that this âyah is more than a report (ambiguous or not) of a historical event. To Cragg,
the âyah tries to convey a deeper message to its readers, a message that can be
12 Ahmad Beheshtî, Isâ, Payâm Âvar-e Eslâm. Tehran : Enteshârat-e Ettelâ’ât, 1379 Solar hijra (pp. 57-8).
13 Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.
INTRODUCTION
8
understood only in the light of “the historical geography of the Qur’ân,” and its different
contexts, and must be re-interpreted again and again in new historical contexts. Cragg
writes:
It is fair to say, however, that, for Muslims in this field, history was never
just for historians. Perhaps it never is. Historians are always more than
mere narrators, and events are never just bare facts. Islamic convictions
about Jesus and the Cross have never simply been those of mere
investigators dealing with evidence. They have been those of believers
persuaded already by theology. It is these à-priori grounds of what is held
as to history which must concern us now. Historicity is involved
inextricably with the larger theme of what ought to be, what requires to be,
and these are determined by how we think of God and how we perceive
our humanity. This is only another way of relating “the nature of the
symbol” to the “nature of the fact”.14
Cragg’s approach has influenced many contemporary scholars in the field of Qur’ânic
Studies. This dissertation hopes to be considered within the spectrum of works belonging
to this third category.
0.3 Limit of the Thesis
The two oldest extent narratives in Muslim literature about the topic of Jesus’ crucifixion
and death in the Qur’ân are those of Wahb ibn Munabbih (34-114H). He seems to be
one of the very few sources of information for early Muslim interpretations of Biblical
stories in the Qur’ân. Wahb’s narratives are the first Muslim written material, so far
known and preserved, to have shaped the development of the substitutionist theory that
later became the consensus among ordinary Muslims on the question of Jesus’ crucifixion
in the Qur’ân. This substitutionist version of the event of the crucifixion of Jesus, of
course, is not foreign to Christianity either. Through the Nag Hammadi scrolls discovered
in 1945, scholars now know that the denial of Jesus’ crucifixion and the belief in a
miraculous substitution represented one of the existing streams of interpretation in early
Christianity for at least the first two centuries C.E. In his book entitled The Crucifixion of
Jesus: History, Myth, Faith, Gerard Stephen Sloyan writes:
The first recorded denial of the reality of the crucifixion by a Christian
14 Ibid., 178.
INTRODUCTION
9
occurs in the Gnostic Valentinus, writing about 140C.E. as quoted by
Irenaeus:
So Jesus did not suffer [on the cross],15
but a certain Simon of
Cyrene was construed to bear his cross for him, and it was Simon
who was crucified in ignorance and error, since he had been
transformed by Jesus to look like himself, so that people thought he
was Jesus, while Jesus took on the appearance of Simon and stood
by and mocked them.
… one should not think that there was but one gnostic view of Jesus’
crucifixion, namely that of Valentinus…. [for example] The version of the
gnostic myth attributed to Ptolemy, a disciple of Valentinus, by Irenaeus
held that when the impassible anointed (or Christ) was brought before
Pilate, the spirit that had been deposited in him was taken away.
What suffered, therefore, was what they consider to be the animate
anointed (Christ) [or lower Jesus, born of Mary], who was mysteriously
constructed … so that through him the mother might display a
representation [symbol] of the superior anointed (Christ) [the savior or
higher Jesus], who had stretched out along the cross … For all things –they
say– are representations of ones in that other (realm).16
So far, it is possible to say that while the Muslim narratives denying Jesus’ crucifixion,
including Wahb’s narratives, do not follow word by word any of the gnostic Christian
materials found to this day, one can easily argue that these two traditions of interpretation
do share a common substitutionist trope. In fact, many crucial elements of Muslim
sources, to a degree, are repetitions of what can be found in those gnostic Christian texts.
In the existing manuscripts of these Muslim narratives, narrators such as Wahb do not
identify their source(s) of information, and present their interpretations of the crucifixion
in a preaching tone and with a story-telling style that frees them from mentioning their
source(s), if any, at a time when orality was dominant.
As it has happened several times before in the field of Textual Studies, any day
can be the day when a new hidden literary treasure is discovered and an unseen
manuscript comes to shed new light on our understanding of certain beliefs and practices
at a given place and time in human history. As for the crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur’ân
and the existing Muslim consensus on its denial, it has not happened yet. But until that
day, a higher critical textual analysis seems to be the only way to improve our common
understanding of the links between Muslim narratives and Christian materials. Such an
15 In this citation, all parenthesis and brackets are from the original text.
16
Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995 (pp. 198-203).
INTRODUCTION
10
analysis is beyond the more narrow scope of this dissertation. Nevertheless, it remains
open to such possible discoveries in the future, adding in the meantime its own additional
layer of results from its careful intertextual and historico-critical analysis.
0.4 The Question of Approaches, Theories, and Methods
In 1947 Muḥammad Aḥmad Khalafallâh (1916-1998C.E.) submitted his doctoral thesis to
the Department of Arabic Language and Literature at Fu’ad al-Awwal University (now
Cairo University). The title of his thesis was: Al-Fann al-Qaṣaṣî fi al-Qur’ân al-Karîm
(the Art of Narration in the Glorious Qur’ân). According to Nasr Abu Zayd, before the
defence took place, “some information was leaked to the media, and a heated polemical
debate took place questioning the university academic regulation in a Muslim society that
allowed such a thesis.”17
Abu Zayd summarises the line of argumentation against the
method used by Khalafallâh as follow:
(1) A literary text is a composition of human imagination while the Qur’ân
represents the word of God that should not be compared to any human
discourse.
(2) To deal with the Qur’ân as a work of literary art, fann, is to suggest
that it is written by Muḥammad.
(3) Furthermore, claiming that the stories of the Qur’ân do not present
actual historical facts, as the literary approach suggests, is committing the
greatest blasphemy that amounts to apostasy. It places the Qur’ân in a
lower position than a book of history.
(4) More insulting to the Qur’ân from the point of view of the traditional
dogma is to claim that its language and structure is historically determined
and culturally formed. It could be easily interpreted to mean that the
Qur’ân is a human text.18
Abu Zayd explains that:
The objection against the literary approach to the Qur’ân is still very
strong in the ongoing debate in modem Islamic thought between the
traditionalists and the modernists, on one hand, and between Muslim and
Western non-Muslim scholars, on the other hand. It presents to a great
extent a continuation of the debate about Khalafallah’s thesis, in which
17 Nasr Abu-Zayd, “The Dilemma of the Literary Approach to the Qur’ân.” Journal of Comparative
Poetics, No. 23, Literature and the Sacred (2003): 8-47 (p. 8).
18
Ibid., 9.
INTRODUCTION
11
classical Islamic thought always plays an undeniable role in justifying the
position of all the participants.19
This thesis tries to continue the line of argumentation that Muslim scholars such as
Khalafallâh drew decades ago. Its main goal is to open new possibilities for the re-
examination of the Qur’ânic text leading to the possibility of new interpretations. To do
so, the example of the narratives on the crucifixion of Jesus is used.20
On the one side,
these narratives are studied in the light of some theories and methods developed at the
dawn of the twentieth century under the famous movement of the new criticism, and on
the other side the tafâsîr of those âyahs are examined with historico-critical methods.
This implies a controversial combination of two approaches that, by many scholars, are
considered to be the opposites of each other. The new critical methods are well known for
their abundance of elements such as “author’s intention,” “reader’s response,” and
“reader’s psychology,” as well as their emphasis on elements internal to the text such as
“paradox,” “irony,” and “ambiguity.” On the contrary, the historico-critical methods pay
special attention to different contexts within which the text has appeared. They try to
discover potential direct or indirect links between the text and the world around it. So the
more the Lower Criticism within New Criticism aims to isolate the text by separating it
from all its external concerns (even its author and reader), the more the historico-critical
approach tries to achieve the text’s sensus literalis historicus through external elements
such as the time, the place, the events, the people, and the other texts existing at the time
of the formation of the text. By combining a lower critical study of the concerned âyahs
with a higher critical study of the tafâsîr of those âyahs, this thesis tries to achieve a
better understanding of two things: first, the image of the crucifixion reflected in the
Qur’ânic text, and second, the same image seen by some mufassirûn.21
19 Ibid.
20
At the beginning of her article entitled Christianity as Described by Persian Muslims, Isabel Stümpel-
Hatami presents a very useful and up-to-date list of western scholars who have worked and/or written on
“the image of Jesus and Christianity in Islam.” To read details about those authors and their works, see
Isabel Stümpel-Hatami, “Christianity as Described by Persian Muslims.” In Muslim Perceptions of Other
Religions: A Historical Survey. Edited by Jacques Waardenburg, 227-239. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
21
For detailed explanations about new criticism, its history, and the challenges that it has faced up to now,
see Leroy Searle’s article entitled New Criticism in The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory &
Criticism. 2nd
ed. Edited by Michael Groden, Martin Kreiswirth, and Imre Szeman. Baltimore: The Johns
INTRODUCTION
12
0.4.1 The New Critical Methods
The new critical methods used in this thesis are two: a close reading of the Qur’ânic
âyahs on the crucifixion of Jesus, and a comparative contextual study of terms and/or
expressions used in those âyahs, particularly the term tawaffâ (death) throughout the
Qur’ân. Having chosen the close reading as one of my methods, I am fully aware of
critics made against this method since its appearance.22
I am also aware that any
“closeness” to the text requires a full mastery of the text’s original language to the extent
that one is able to perceive very small nuances in meaning, such as those that may
emerge from comparing a word when used within different grammatical forms. In reply
to those critics, I follow Cleanth Brooks’ reasoning quoted below, which sheds light on
my own reason for choosing close reading nevertheless, as well as how “close” I might
be able to get to reading the Qur’ân:
Besides a preference for emphasizing the text rather than the writer’s
motives and the reader’s reaction, does there exist any other possible
common ground occupied by the so-called New Critics? If so, it is
probably “close reading.” But it might be more accurate to substitute
“adequate reading.” “Adequate” is, to be sure, a relative term; but so is
“close.” (How close is close enough?) The substitution of “adequate”
might help relieve the New Critic of the jeweller’s eyepiece with which he
is equipped as he is commonly pictured when engaged in a microscopic
study of a text. Some documents do require a more careful reading than
Hopkins University Press, 2005 (pp. 691-8). An online PDF version of this article is e-published by the
University of Washington, and is available online at
http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu/Texts/SEARLE/NEW%20CRITICISM-rev.pdf (consulted on
Nov. 4th
2011). For some detailed explanations about historico-critical methods, see Richard N. Soulen and
R. Kendall, Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd
ed. Revised and expanded edition. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2001.
22
In his article entitled Should College English Be Close Reading?, Don Bialostosky lists a good number
of books, articles, and scholars who have written against the close reading method. He concludes that:
Our problem [caused by teaching close reading to our students] is that students have learned to
distrust their repertoires of discursive knowledge and expectations and have never been
encouraged to reflect upon them and to deploy them in the distinctive and interesting tasks of
reading that literary works invite. If you wanted, as I do not, to call reading grounded in these
repertoires “close reading,” it would be because they would bring literary works closer to students,
to the discourse they know and use, instead of distancing, even alienating those works from the
language students already know how to use and enjoy. In this sense we could polemically
characterize New Critical reading not as close but, as it sometimes has been characterized, elitist,
sacerdotal, allegorical.
See Don Bialostosky, “Should College English Be Close Reading?” College English, vol. 69, No. 2 (Nov.
2006): 111-116.
INTRODUCTION
13
others; that again seems a reasonable surmise. “Twinkle, twinkle, little
star” requires less careful reading than Words worth’s “The Solitary
Reaper.” (I’m not forgetting, of course, that some modern theorists could
turn even “Twinkle, twinkle” or “Mary had a little lamb” into a verbal
labyrinth, “and [find] no end, in wandering mazes lost.” Consider, for
example, the number of meanings of “lamb” and the number of analogues
for “Mary.” To a richly stored literary mind these two words offer almost
infinite possibilities. In fact only weariness of the flesh or the adoption of
an arbitrary terminus need bring such a free-ranging process to an end.)23
0.4.2 The Comparative Contextual Method and the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite Nature
The comparative contextual method examines the usages of individual as well as the
combined terms and expressions that individually hold or collectively form meanings
within the concerned âyahs. This method is a very popular method used by almost every
mufassir throughout the history of tafsîr. This method, also used by both Todd Lawson
and Neal Robinson in their works on the crucifixion of Jesus,24
helps to achieve a more
accurate image of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur’ân. Both Lawson and Robinson
focus on the terms shubbiha lahum (it appeared so unto them), and build their arguments
on the similar usages of this expression throughout the Qur’ân. This thesis will put an
emphasis on the terms inni mutawaffîka (being translated: “I will gather thee” or “I will
cause you to die”), trying to understand the phenomenon of death in the Qur’ân, and its
relationship with humans’ nature.
As a fruit of this approach, this thesis presents a theory that I call the theory of
humans’ tripartie nature. This theory explains how, according to the Qur’ân, while all
alive creatures are composed of al-jasad (the body) and al-rûḥ (the spirit), human being
enjoys the exclusive privilege of having a third divine element in his or her composition,
al-nafs (the soul). Although both terms of “the soul” and “the spirit” exist in Abrahamic
religious traditions, the difference between them is often not clear. One can find
examples of mixing these two terms/concepts with each other throughout the exegetical
works of Abrahamic traditions. Since the Qur’ân puts an emphasis on the non-divine
23 Cleanth Brooks, “The State of Letters: The New Criticism.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 87, No. 4 (Fall
1979): 600-601.
24
See Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought. Oxford:
One World Publications, 2009; also see Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity. Albany: State
University of NewYork Press, 1991.
INTRODUCTION
14
human nature of Jesus, this theory helps to analyse better the information given in the
Qur’ân about the last day of Jesus on earth.
0.4.3 The Theory of Double Messages of the Qur’ân
The third method used in this thesis is called the theory of double messages of the
Qur’ân. According to this theory, which I have developed myself, the Qur’ânic âyahs
must be divided into two main categories. I call the first category the category of “the
prophetic verses” and the second one the category of “the messengeric verses.”25
According to this theory, the Qur’ânic âyahs must be studied and understood under two
main archetypes: first, âyât al-nabawiyyah (the prophetic âyahs) or those âyahs revealed
in direct link with their historical contexts (i.e. cultural, economic, socio-political, etc.),
reflecting the Prophet’s life, his local human individual or collective concerns such as
events around him, and/or people in touch with him; and second, âyat al-rasûliyyah (the
messengeric âyahs) or âyahs revealed with no particular attention to the contexts of the
Prophet’s life. Both types can have their asbâb al-nuzûl (occasions of revelation) but the
prophetic âyahs are responses limited to their asbâb al-nuzûl, while the messengeric
âyahs use their asbâb al-nuzûl as opportunities to transfer messages beyond their
contexts. The prophetic âyahs reflect the prophecy of Muḥammad, and they have a
limited time bound and space bound audience, so the messages that they transfer are also
time bound and/or space bound. On the contrary, the messengeric âyahs are the results of
the messengerhood of Muḥammad presenting messages for all humanity at all times. This
thesis tries to offer a new textual tool to Qur’ânic researchers, so they can recognize these
two types of âyahs from each other. It also helps us understand how the inability to make
this distinction has contributed to the formation of supposedly unchanging doctrines and
dogmas in the course of Islamic history. Finally, this thesis develops and uses this theory
to examine the âyahs on the crucifixion of Jesus, and tries to reveal to which category
belong those âyahs. It seeks to explain the potential implications of this categorization for
interpreting those âyahs.
25 The reason I do not use the Qur’ânic term âyah for these nominations is because this theory is not
exclusive to the Qur’ân, but might be applied to other sacred texts too.
INTRODUCTION
15
0.4.4 The Historico-critical Theory and the Redaction Critical Method26
The historico-critical methods are vastly used by both Christian theologians and scholars
of the modern study of religion.27
As a branch of literary criticism, these methods try to
achieve a better understanding of the meaning(s) of the text and its functions by
reconstructing the historical context in which the author(s) and the reader(s) are
connected to each other through the text.28
As a theory, the historico-critical approach
believes that the world around the text is reflected in the text contributing not only to
shape the text, but also to form its meanings. So in order to achieve a sharper perception
of those meanings, the external elements must be carefully studied, and the interactions
between the text and its surroundings (including other texts) must be analysed. Although
historico-critical methods might be considered as “heretical” by faithful orthodox
adherents when applied to their sacred text, this thesis does not aim to use them to study
the credibility or the historicity of the Qur’ân. Instead some tafâsîr of the âyahs on the
crucifixion, as earthly works of humans, are the subject of this method.
The redaction critical method will specifically be used to to analyze how some
mufassirûn, as redactors of their tafâsîr, have shaped their works of interpretation, seeing
if those works are united in their theological goals or not. To do so, this thesis begins its
redaction critical analysis with a reconstruction of the outlines of different narratives
about the crucifixion in the concerned tafâsîr. Then it verifies the existence or the
absence of “structural unity” and “thematic unity” among those outlines, as well as the
degree of “rhetorical unity” among the prophetic aḥâdîth that are used in them.29
26
Some scholars use the term “historical-critical” to refer to the same approach. I could not find any
legitimate reason to prefer one or the other. I asked my supervisor, Dr. Patrice Brodeur, and he suggested
using “historico-critical” without mentioning a specific reason. I will follow his suggestion throughout this
thesis. So, whenever we have the term historico-critical, it refers to the same approach as historical-critical.
(Conversation with Dr. Patrice Brodeur on Sept. 18th
, 2011, at his office at the Canada Research Chair on
Islam, Pluralism, and Globalization at l’Université de Montréal, in Montreal.)
27
For a detailed description of historico-critical methods, see Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of biblical
criticism. 3rd
ed. Revised and expanded edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
28
When looked at from behind the glasses of postmodernism, we know that, at its best, the historical
critical method helps us to understand better the “true” meaning of the text at the time of its appearance or
its copying. This “true” meaning, of course, is subject to changes, modifications, and evolutions over time
and each version of the meaning will be “true” and “authentic” for its own time and within its own context.
29
For a scholarly work on redaction criticism as scientific method, see Norman Perrin, What is Redaction
Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1969. See also Terence Collins, The Mantle of Elijah: the
Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books.The Biblical Seminar. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1993.
INTRODUCTION
16
0.4.5 Two Important Clarifications
While explaining approaches and methods used in this work, two clarifications seem
necessary: first, the question of the historicity of the crucifixion, and second, my
relationship, as the researcher, to the subject of this study.
On the historicity of the Jesus’ crucifixion, as Abu Zayd explains, when the
Qur’ânic stories are read as literary narratives, the question of historical authenticity
becomes irrelevant. He concludes:
Quoting some remarks from classical sources, such as al-Qadi ‘Abd al-
Jabbar, al-Zamakhshari and al-Razi, as well as modern sources, especially
‘Abduh, Khalafallah emphasizes the conclusion that the stories of the
Qur’ân are allegories, amthal, that do not intend to convey historical facts
per se. As amthal they belong to the category of mutashabihat or
ambiguous. Because the classical commentators try to explain the
ambiguity, they fill their books with data borrowed from previous religious
traditions, isra’iliyyat. The literary approach does not need such data,
because it differentiates between the structure of the story, jism al-qissa,
and its meaning. This differentiation is based on classical as well as
modem explanation. The classical explanation, which is based on dealing
with the stories as amthal, distinguishes in the structure of mathal,
allegory, between the meaning, al-ma‘nâ, and its implication, luzum; both
are not necessarily identical. The modem explanation is taken from the
literary narrative dealing with some historical characters or some historical
incidents, such as the character of the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra, dealt
with by Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw and Ahmad Shawqi, and Sir Walter
Scott’s novels. The body of such stories seems to be historical, but the
meaning, or the message, does not necessarily reflect history. The writer is
entitled to enjoy freedom in using history in his literary composition; such
a freedom is by no means allowed to a historian.30
Thus, this thesis does not aim to either prove, or disprove, the historicity of Jesus’
crucifixion. In other words, the crucifixion of Jesus is not the subject matter of the
historico-critical approach used by this thesis. Neither a historico-critical text of the
Qur’ân, as an anthology, is the subject of this study. Instead, the example of some
Qur’ânic âyahs and their tafâsîr as the foundations of the existing consensus among
Muslims on the negation of Jesus’ crucifixion is used to verify the functionality and the
efficiency of the elected methods, as well as other methods presented within this work.
30 Nasr Abu-Zayd, “The Dilemma of the Literary Approach to the Qur’ân.” Journal of Comparative
Poetics, No. 23, Literature and the Sacred (2003): 25-6.
INTRODUCTION
17
For devout Muslims, the historicity of the Qur’ânic narratives is undeniable and out of
question. So, the human’s earthly and limited historical knowledge cannot defeat the
ultimate knowledge of God revealing the truth to humans.31
On the relationship between the researcher and the subject of the research, this
thesis follows the model presented and explained by Northrop Frye (1912-1991C.E.). As
Frye explains, there is a difference between “knowledge of things” and “knowledge about
things.” This difference comes exclusively from the relationship between the knower and
the known. To him, “the knowledge about things” preserves the distance (split) between
the knower and the known, but the “knowledge of things” implies what he calls “some
kind of identification or essential unity” between the knower (as the subject of knowing)
and the object of his knowledge. Systematic research, as a method of knowledge, is as old
as Greek Philosophy, and researcher as a seeker of knowledge whose goal is to become a
knower sharing that knowledge with others can only fall under the category of
“knowledge about things.” Frye writes: “knowledge about things is the limit of teaching.
Knowledge of things cannot be taught: for one thing, the possibility that there is some
principle of identity that can link the knower and the known in some essential relation is
indemonstrable. It can only be accepted, whether unconsciously as an axiom or
deliberately as an act of faith.”32
This thesis must not be, in any sense of the term,
considered as a confessional effort or an act of faith. On the contrary, it tries to reveal
how a set of different contexts can contribute to the understanding of literary aspects of a
narrative, irrespective of its divine or human nature, and use a “lower” critical
comprehension of the narrated event (knowledge about that event through the text) to
bring its readers’ mind towards a “higher” understanding of the narrated event (knowing
31 Christian theology is not far from this position. As Iain G. Nicole explains:
… the union of the historical-critical method with theology … will not be a particularly
balanced or harmonious one as long as the former is made to play footman to the master.
And if this interpretation is correct, if the role of a historical-critical method is essentially
to confirm an albeit hidden a priori assumption or assumptions, what critical function is it
permitted to retain? Or is theology’s historisch kritische Methode to be no longer allowed
to exert any specifically critical function at all?
See Iain G. Nicol, “Facts and Meanings: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Theology as History and the Role of the
Historical-Critical Method.” Religious Studies, vol. 12, No. 2 (June 1976): 129-39 (p. 139).
32
Northrop Frye, “Criticism, Visible and Invisible.” College English, vol. 26, No. 1 (Oct. 1964): 3-12 (p.
3).
INTRODUCTION
18
of the event) in a religious experience. To Frye, this is “the central activity” of literary
criticism. He writes:
The central activity of criticism, which is the understanding of literature, is
essentially one of establishing a context for the works of literature being
studied. This means relating them to other things: to their context in the
writer’s life, in the writer’s time, in the history of literature, and above all
in the total structure of literature itself, or what I call the order of words.
Relation to context accounts for nearly the whole of the factual basis of
criticism, the aspect of it that can progress through being verified or
refuted by later criticism.33
Of course, the model followed by this thesis cannot prevent any reader from becoming
believer for or against its content, but this is true about any other research doing any kind
of textual or contextual studies on sacred texts.
0.4.6 The Historico-critical Method and New Criticism
Warner Berthoff starts his article entitled The Study of Literature and the Recovery of the
Historical, with some very interesting questions: “What knowledge are we in search of
when we ‘study’ literature? Or, ‘what would we really know the meaning of?’”34
In order
to answer these questions, he first makes a distinction between three kinds of written
works: “literature,” “scripture,” and “legislation.” Then he answers: “The great function
of literature is to open the heart and increase wisdom. Or it is, in Dr. Johnson’s plain
phrase, ‘to bring realities to mind’-and incidentally to teach us something of how to deal
with them, to remind us that knowledge of realities will not come at a whistle but must be
labored after with much pain and disappointment.”35
But one might say that Berthoff’s
statement about literature is also true about scripture. As a matter of fact, scripture also
tries to bring realities to our minds, teaching us how to deal with past, present or future
facts. For a scripture such as the Qur’ân, the Day of Judgement is a real fact as true as the
creation of Adam from dust. Berthoff answers this problem by saying that what
distinguishes scripture and legislation from literature is not in the nature of the text, nor in
33 Ibid., 11.
34
Warner Berthoff, “The Study of Literature and the Recovery of the Historical.” College English, vol.
27, No. 7 (April 1967): 477-86 (p. 477).
35
Ibid., 3.
INTRODUCTION
19
its content, but in the relationship between the reader and the text. He writes: “The
confusion of literature with scripture and legislation (or merely with ‘school,’ as Robert
Frost sourly called it): that is what we resist, without in the least denying the power of
books to change our minds and lives. It is in fact the erosion of precisely this power that
disheartens us.”36
Here, Berthoff mentions a crucial function of scripture: “written to be
believed without resistance.”37
As we saw before, a relationship of the same nature has
been mentioned by Northrop. The combination of Northrop’s model and Berthoff’s
definition would be: scriptures are oral or written literatures presented with the purpose
of giving their faithful readers/audiences a knowledge of things, so that knowledge, in its
turn, can bring past, present or future realities to the believers’ mind. The certainty of the
scripture’s content is in part rooted in the high appreciation of its faithful reader/audience
and the non-resistance nature of his/her relationship to the scripture. One of the reasons I
consider scripture as a literature, (or as explained in this page’s footnote, a “class” of
literature), is that although Berthoff separates it from literature on the basis of its reader’s
non-resistant submission to it, his later argument on the relation between literature and
history includes scripture, and represents it as a piece of literature. He writes: “literature
also exists in and belongs to history; and it is as phenomena of history that works of
literature can be ‘studied.’38
This is also true about the scripture when read from behind
non-faithful glasses. He continues: “The study of literature (as of art, of religion, of war,
of commerce, of every form of the civil and communal) is the study of a special sector
and type of historical existence and the knowledge proper to this study is historical
knowledge.”39
This also is true about scripture when studied by a non-believer. He
concludes:
36 Ibid.
37
Although Berthoff separates scripture from literature, I believe that we must define scripture within
literature. However, scriptures are more than a simple genre. Indeed, as pieces of literature, scriptures use
and combine freely a vast variety of literary genres offering various styles and techniques (there are some
limits: for example, scoffing does not seem to be present in scriptures). Neither can they be considered as a
“school” in the literature (because of the diversity in their forms and contents). I therefore suggest that
scripture be considered as a “class” of literature, and the common characteristic for all members of this
class is that, as Berthoff writes: they are written to be believed without resistance. Quotations?
38
Berthoff, “The Study of Literature and the Recovery of the Historical,” 482.
39
Ibid.
INTRODUCTION
20
For what we are shown through works of literature is how a collective
wisdom [a knowledge of things and not about things] … can operate for
the duration of a deliberated creative effort within a single intelligence-and
can act thereafter as a new cause, an instrument of unpredictable change
and transcendence. That is, we are shown the fundamental pattern of the
historical, that indeterminate successional dimension of existence (and of
the knowledge of existence) shared so far as we know by no other species
but uniquely created by the collaborative will and life-enterprise of
individual men. … We live by an immense complicity-and we are not born
knowing this but discover it only through being told and told and told of it
in incessant stories, anecdotes, serial participations.40
A major part of these “told and told … stories, anecdotes, [and] serial participations,”
come from scriptures. The passage about Jesus’ crucifixion in the Qur’ân is an example
of it par excellence. If looked at as a non-believer, it is a piece of literature, a story (or a
part of a story) recited from generation to generation sharing a collective wisdom, and if
looked at as a believer, it remains the same piece of literature, revealing a wisdom about a
past reality through âyahs sent to the Prophet, so Muslims can have a non-debatable
knowledge of it.41
The two case studies below support the idea of the quick historical formation of
the collective identity called “Muslim”, which was born within the tafâsîr of the Qur’ân.
The first case study focuses on the name of the sacred book in Islam revealing the
challenges of the nomination of the “Book” as the first step of its legal identification. The
second case study uses two âyahs on the disciples of Jesus for opening a line of
discussion about the term Muslim as the final product of the afore-mentioned collective
self-identification procedure.
0.5 Outline of the Thesis
This dissertation is organized into four chapters. The first chapter offers a detailed description
as well as a brief history of key issues such as the Qur’ân, the Ḥadîth, and the Tafsîr.42
This
chapter is enriched with two case studies: the first one is a historico-textual study of the term
40 Ibid., 481. This paragraph comes before the two previous citations, but I consider it to be a sort of
conclusion for what Berthoff writes after it.
41
Later, we will see how, within the same Qur’ânic âyahs on the crucifixion of Jesus, the uncertainty of
all knowledge of that event has been emphasized.
42
By using a capital “h” at the beginning of Ḥadîth, I refer to the ensemble of collections of aḥâdîth that
together function as the second main source of knowledge for Muslims.
INTRODUCTION
21
al-qur’ân (the Qur’ân) as one of the most important concepts that have contributed to the
formation of a common Muslim worldview over time. The second one is composed of two
parts: first, an effort to desacralize two mufassirûn’s texts, using them as examples to study the
possibility of a direct impact of mufassir’s socio-political context, and his relationship to power
on his personal reflections and resulting intellectual works; and the second part is an
intertextual study of two Qur’ânic terms, muslim (Muslim) and naṣârâ (Christians),
challenging the existing consensus among Muslims on the function of these terms as identifiers
for clearly distinguished religious identities. Together, these two case studies aim to address in
a straightforward manner the uncertainty and the relativism that one must understand and deal
with when working with/on the tafâsîr of the Qur’ân.
The second chapter offers the theoretical backbone of this dissertation. Within this
chapter different subdivisions of the Qur’ân are discussed and a new subdivision is presented
under the form of the above-mentioned theory of double messages of the Qur’ân. This theory,
at the heart of this dissertation, aims to help the readers of the Qur’ân get closer to the
experience of what I call “the fifth layer of meaning” or “the soul of the text.” This fifth layer is
the last of five layers that I present as another theory within this same chapter.
The third chapter is a detailed study of the concept of “self” found in their two Qur’ânic
variants of nafs (soul) and rûḥ (spirit). This chapter aims to better distinguish soul from spirit in
order to reduce the confusion that has often existed in the understanding of these two important
terms/concepts in Islam. This clarification comes as a result of using a Qur’ânic theory that I
call humans’ tripartite nature. As explained in this chapter, this theory is only partially new, as
earlier versions of it have been discussed by some Muslim erudites, albeit in an incomplete and
deficient way. I invite my readers to correct and solidify it through their own critiques. In
addition, this chapter analyzes two different levels of death in the Qur’ân, as related to the two
terms tawaffâ and mawt. This analysis reveals their differences and finds how they are linked to
the Qur’ânic concepts of nafs and rûḥ.
The fourth and final chapter is the raison d’être of this dissertation. This chapter
focuses exclusively on the question of the crucifixion of Jesus aiming to discover the historical
roots of the actual denial of Jesus’ crucifixion among Muslims. To do so, eight mufassirûn are
chosen, starting with Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s narratives followed by the seven other’s
hermeneutical reactions to him. This chapter aims especially to demonstrate the role and the
INTRODUCTION
22
impact of different socio-political contexts on the hermeneutical choices of the concerned
mufassirûn. This chapter ends with a re-reading of the Qur’ânic image of Jesus’ crucifixion in
the light of the theory of double messages of the Qur’ân, as well as a re-examination of Jesus’
crucifixion through the lenses of the theory of humans’ tripartite nature.
Chapter 1
The Qur’ân and its Hermeneutics: First Steps towards a
New Interpretation of Muslims’ Sacred Text
1.1 Introduction
Down the centuries, the Qur’ân has always been the cornerstone for a normative Islam, as
well as the fundamental principle of its adherents’ daily life all around the world. Despite
its modest size compared to the Christian Bible, the Hindu Upanishads or the Buddhist
Tripitaka, the Qur’ân has always functioned for its adherents as an all-time legal
reference, a timeless carrier of knowledge, an eternally flowing river of wisdom, and a
profound source of inspiration. In our modern contemporary world, and after 14 centuries
since its first appearance, the Qur’ân continues to speak powerfully to more than a
quarter of the world’s population. Considered unanimously by devout Muslims to be a
word by word and letter by letter transcript of Allâh’s divine word to the Messenger
Muḥammad by the intermediary of Jibrîl (the Archangel Gabriel), the Qur’ânic âyahs are
proudly memorized in their Arabic original form by Muslims of all ethnicities and
languages. These verses are recited in all kinds of religious contexts (prayers, rituals,
ceremonies, etc.) as well as in various situations in Muslims’ daily life. For so many
Muslims around the world, not only the Qur’ân can teach believers the best reaction
when faced with anything new and/or unknown, but it is also the ultimate arbiter, giving
the final word in any discussion, debate or conflict.1 According to Alexander Knysh:
1 To have a sense of this power of the Qur’ân, it is enough to read the preface of any tafsîr. See, for
example, Ḥâfiẓ abu al-Fidâ’ Ismâ‘îl ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr. 8 vols. Edited by Sâmî b. Muḥammad al-
Salâmat. Riyadh: Dâr Ṭaiba for Publishing and Distributions, 1999, available online at
http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-8.html (consulted on Sep. 1st 2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
24
“The overwhelming central role played by the Qur’ân in Muslim piety”
is an axiom that is recognised by both Muslims and outside observers.
The book’s profound and pervasive influence on all aspects of Islamic
personal and communal life and its ubiquitous presence in Islamic
sciences, arts, literature, craftsmanship, devotional practices and
everyday speech are richly attested. Less obvious and more difficult to
gauge is its impact on the social, familial and political behaviour and on
the spiritual and intellectual life of the average Muslim, although this,
too, is easy to imagine.2
In 1988, eighteen years before Knysh, Mustansir Mir had written:
… in 1987 Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, editors of The Literary
Guide to the Bible, spoke with satisfaction of the proven effectiveness of
the literary approach to the Bible, adding that there is “a need, felt by
clerical and secular students alike, to achieve a new accommodation with
the Bible as it is, which is to say, as literature of high importance and
power”. The Qur’ân, like the Bible, is an acknowledged literary
masterpiece. But, unfortunately, it has not yet received the kind of
attention Moulton speaks of with reference to the Bible. And it will
probably not be in the near future that one will be able to speak, as Alter
and Kermode have in regard to the Bible, about significant gains on the
literary front regarding the Qur’ân.3
Neither Mir, nor anyone else, could have predicted that in less than a decade and a half,
the Qur’ân and all branches of Qur’ânic Studies would become the center of attention in
most Western academic institutions with programs in Religious Studies, especially in
North America. This “attention,” though, was not of the same nature than what Mir had
been wishing for. In fact, after the events of September 11th
, 2001 in the United States of
America, and because of the frequent and proud usage of Qur’ânic âyahs in most activist-
extremist Islamic discourses, the western scholarship of Islam rapidly became interested
in adding the systematic scholarship on Muslims’ sacred texts in particular and Islamic
hermeneutics in general to the popular domains of the humanities and social sciences,
specially to the modern study of Islam itself. Since then, this growing interest has enabled
2 Alexander Knysh, “Multiple Areas of Influence.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ân, 211-233.
3 Mustansir Mir, “The Qur’ân as Literature.” Religion & Literature, vol. 20, No. 1, The Literature of Islam
(Spring 1988): 49-64 (p. 49).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
25
textual scholars of Islamic studies to collaborate more intensely than before with their
fellow scholars from all academic disciplines, for example, from arts to forensic sciences.
This chapter continues this interdisciplinary trend in modern Islamic Studies. It
has two objectives. The first objective is to analyze the formation of the Qur’ân, its early
history and the historical context in which ḥadîth and tafsîr have emerged as two non
separable factors in the understanding of the Qur’ân. The main goal of this chapter is to
analyze how the partly concomitant and partly sequential formative processes that lead to
the Qur’ân, the ḥadîth, and the tafsîr have helped Muslims define and shape a collective
identity for themselves within the particular political power dynamics of the early
development of the Muslim community. This new identity enabled early Muslims to
establish a powerful empire, and to protect it from the potential danger of identity
dilution. The following two case studies on how the concepts of “al-Qur’ân” (The Book)
and “Muslim” (Believer) emerged as central defining concepts of Muslim identity, will
exemplify how this identity dynamic shaped early Islamic history. The second objective
of this chapter is to present and explain the theories and methods used in this thesis as a
whole, as first demonstrated in these two case studies.
1.2 The Qur’ân
In the West, since the very beginning of the appearance of what is called today “Islamic
Studies,” and more specifically “Qur’ânic Studies,” the Qur’ân and its integrity as one
text has been the subject of debate among western scholars of Islam.4 The theories and
methods of these scholars consist of a vast range of scientific approaches, for example,
from “pure textual studies” within the stream of Lower Criticism to “contextual studies”
within the schools of Higher Criticism, as well as to the highly developed ethnographic
approaches focusing on social aspects of Arabs’ cultural heritage as reflected in their
sacred texts. All those efforts are dedicated to a better understanding of, and a clearer
explanation about, the emergence, the evolution, and the coherence of Islam’s sacred text,
the Qur’ân. They also try to reveal the roles that this text, as Word of God, has played in
4 Coming from all around the world, most of these scholars are non-Muslims or non-believers, and few of
them are faithful Muslims. The nomination of “western scholar” refers to the fact that they are all trained in
Western academic institutions of higher learning and work with theories and methods developed in the
West.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
26
human history up to the present. The results of those various scientific efforts can be
presented in the form of a spectrum having, at one end, the “rejection” of the Qur’ân even
as an ethical scripture and, at the other end, the “conversion to Islam” through the
Qur’ân.5 All scholarly works on the Qur’ân as a whole or on different aspects of it fall
somewhere in between these two extremes. Most of them are clustered in one group or
another, all of whom tend to fall closer to one end or the other of this spectrum, rather
than in the middle which is where this thesis aims to be.
A clear example of a work that belongs to the first group of scholars (falling close
to the “rejection” end of this spectrum) is the book of the Swedish scholar Geo
Widengren (1907-1996C.E.) entitled Muḥammad, the Apostle of God, and His
Ascension.6 Despite the absence then and now of any historical and/or textual evidences
that would lead contemporary scholars to believe that the Prophet Muḥammad was able
to read or write, Widengren claims that “Muḥammad himself has both read and written
5 Two examples representing the two ends of this spectrum are Cristoph Luxenberg, a pseudonym, and
Vincent Cornell. The person behind the pseudonym “Luxenberg” is well known for his efforts to prove that
the Qur’ân is a reformulation of an earlier Christian Syriac lectionary. In a review on his book entitled Die
syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprach, François de
Blois, professor of Iranian Studies at the University of Hamburg (2002-2003), concludes:
It is necessary, in conclusion to say a little about the authorship, or rather the non-
authorship, the pseudonymity of this book. An article published in the New York Times on
2nd
March 2002 (and subsequently broadly disseminated in the internet) referred to this
book as the work of ‘Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in
Germany’. It is, I think, sufficiently clear from this review that the person in question
[Luxenberg] is not ‘a scholar of ancient Semitic languages’. He is someone who evidently
speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable, but not flawless command of classical Arabic,
knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is innocent of any real
understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics. His book is not a
work of scholarship but of dilettantism.
See François de Blois, review of Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur
Entschlüsselung der Koransprach, by Cristoph Luxenberg. The Journal of Qur’ânic Studies, volume V,
issue 1 (2003): 92-97 (p. 97). For a detailed study/critique of Luxenberg’s work, see also Devin J. Stewart,
“Notes on Medieval and Modern Emendations of the Qur’ân.” In The Qur’ân in Its Historical Context.
Edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, 225-281. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, for an example of Cornell’s admiration for Islam and its sacred text,
see his article: Vincent Cornell, “God: God in Islam.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion. 2nd
ed. 15 vols. Edited
by Lindsay Jones (editor in chief), 5:3560-2. Detroit: Macmillan, 2005. Despite his openly faithful tone, his
strong scientific methodology, as well as his thoroughly researched analysis, prevents other scholars from
easily dismissing his scholarly writings.
6 Geo Widengren, Muhammad, the Apostle of God, and His Ascension. King and Saviour series. Uppsala,
Wiesbaden: Lundequistska bokhandeln, 1955.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
27
the Divine Revelations.”7 In fact, beside numerous aḥâdîth on his analphabetic lifestyle,
on a few occasions, the Qur’ân itself puts an emphasis on his illiteracy as a proof for the
authenticity of the revelations. For example, 48:29 reads:
طه ب ول ت ـو ت ت تتوا من قبهۦ من وما ٱلمبطون ۥ بيمي ا رتا إ
And thou (O Muḥammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor
didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted
who follow falsehood.
Surprisingly, Widengren uses this very âyah as one of his main proof for his own
opposite conclusion: “That Muḥammad himself, by committing his revelations to paper,
purposely aimed at creating a Holy Book in competition with the Tôrah and ‘Evangel’, is
perfectly clear.”8 Widengren seems to consider what is a debatable possibility as if it is a
certain historical fact. He does not take into account the numerous discussions among
early mufassirûn, as well as among western scholars, about the question of the time of the
first compilation of the Qur’ân, as well as that of whether or not the Prophet Muḥammad
had ordered Muslims to put together the scattered Qur’ânic âyahs in order to make a
book out of them.9 On this last point, Kenneth Cragg (a leading scholar close to the same
7 Ibid., 150.
8 Geo Widengren, Muhammad, the Apostle of God, and His Ascension, 150.
9 To have a sense of the confusing diversity of opinions on the compilation of the Qur’ân in the Prophet’s
era, see Hossein Modarresi’s article on the integrity of the Qur’ân. At one point (p. 6), Modarresi writes:
The evidence in the text of the Qur’ân itself as well as in ḥadîth indicates that the Prophet
compiled a written scripture for Islam during his own life-time, most likely in his first
years in Medina. He reportedly continued until the end of his life to personally instruct
the scribes where to insert new passages of the revelation in the scripture.
See Hossein Modarresi, “Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qur’ân: A Brief Survey.” Studia Islamica,
No. 77 (1993): 5-39. Two pages later, Modarresi states that the belief in the compilation of the Qur’ân
during the Prophet’s life is a Shi’î belief, and that “The Sunnite account of the collection of the Qur’ân is
completely different from the above. It contends that the Qur’ân was not compiled in a single volume until
after the Prophet died in the year 11H/632.” (p. 8). Modarresi does not directly cite any mufassir, but refers
to a list of major books of aḥâdîth and tafâsîr with complete references (including the page numbers).
While not being exhaustive, I nevertheless checked the following three sources from his list: Jalâl al-Dîn
‘Abd al-Raḥmân al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân. 4 vols. Cairo: al-Maṭba‘at al-Azhariyyah al-
Miṣriyyah, 1974 (vol. 1, pp. 212-3, 216); Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad al-Imâm Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. 6 vols.
Cairo: Mu’assisat al-Qurṭaba, no date (vol. 1, p. 57), available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=8&book=58 (consulted on August 31st 2011); Muḥammad
b. ‘Isâ al-Tirmidhî, Jâmi‘ al-Tirmidhî. 1st ed. 6 vols. Edited by Bashshâr ‘Awwâd Ma‘rûf. Dâr al-Gharb al-
Islâmî, 1996 (vol. 4 pp. 336-7), available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1765
(consulted on August 31st 2011)]. From these three sources, it is not clear whether or not the Prophet
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
28
group) affirms that, by the death of the Prophet Muḥammad in 632C.E., although the
contents of the Qur’ân were finalised, they were not collected all together in any final
shape.10
As for the famous Islamic historian Muḥammad b. Sa‘d Kâtib al-Wâqidî (168-
230H), in his main work Kitâb al-Ṭabaqât al-Kabîr, he devotes a whole chapter to the
history of the gathering of the Qur’ânic âyahs and those who committed to writing and
compiling them into one book after the death of the Prophet.11
A clear example of a work that belongs to a second group of scholars (falling close
to the other “conversion” end of the spectrum) is the book by Laura Veccia Vaglieri
(1893-1989C.E.), an Italian professor at Naples Eastern University, entitled Apologia
dell’Islamismo. In this book, whose title was wisely translated into English as An
Interpretation of Islam, Vaglieri writes:
On the whole we find in it a collection of wisdom which can be adopted
by the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the most
skilful of politicians… But there is another proof of the Divinity of the
Qur’ân; it is the fact that it has been preserved intact through the ages
since the time of its Revelation till the present day… Read and reread by
the Muslim world, this book does not rouse in the faithful any weariness, it
rather, through repetition, is more loved every day. It gives rise to a
profound feeling of awe and respect in the one who reads it or listens to
it… Therefore, above all, what caused the great and rapid diffusion of
Islam was through the fact that this Book… was the book of Allâh.12
ordered a few selected kuttâb (writers) to preserve Qur’ânic âyahs in written form, or whether he ordered
them “to compile a scripture.” Modarresi does not explain why most of his references for this Shi’î belief
are Sunnî sources. It might be because he wants to demonstrate that this particular Shi’î belief originated
with Sunnî erudites.
10
Kenneth Cragg, Readings in the Qur’ân. London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1988 (p. 26).
11
See Muḥammad b. Sa‘d Kâtib al-Wâqidî, Kitâb al-Ṭabaqât al-Kabîr. 8 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Taḥrîr, 1968,
available online at http://www.al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/depot3/gap.php?file=i001129.pdf (consulted on
Sep. 1st 2011).
12
Laura Veccia Vaglieri, An Interpretation of Islam. Translated from Italian by Dr. Aldo Caselli. New
Delhi: Good Word Books, 2004 (p. 52). The back cover of the book reads:
The Prophet Muḥammad at God’s behest, called men to the worship of one God and
proclaimed that, by responding to this call, mankind would achieve true dignity, honour,
prosperity and happiness. Within an astonishingly brief period, and over vast areas which
were in the grip of ignorance, darkness and confusion were finally dispelled, order was
established and all manner of beneficent institutions sprang into life, a high moral order
was set up and the blessings of knowledge, learning and science began to be widely
diffused. The strength of this message was its crystal clear simplicity and marvelous
easiness, for Islam reached out to the soul of the people without having recourse to long
explanations and involved sermons. Thanks to this message, bringing the ideals of tawhid,
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
29
Beyond this academic debate where the positions vary from biased rejection to emotional
admiration, the Qur’ân remains the central pillar of a Muslim’s faith; it keeps unified
under its own textual “banner” Muslim adherents of all colors, ethnicities and
languages.13
Down the centuries, this unification has been shaped and strengthened by
Muslims’ belief in three aspects of their sacred text: first, the undeniable divine nature of
the Qur’ân;14
second, the preserved coherence of the Qur’ânic text;15
and third the finality
of the text.16
But this unification has not been the ultimate stage of the relationship
between the text and its adherents. It has rapidly led to the next stage: the formation of an
identity around that relationship. As soon as the concept of a divine-integral-final text had
been shaped among adherents, a strong collective identity was rapidly built around it.
This identity was established based on the concept of a new al-kitâb (Book). In fact, even
before its compilation, passages of the Qur’ân had already prepared the theological
framework and the social ground for such a relationship by glorifying certain previous
receivers of the revelations as ahl al-kitâb (people of the Book). I will come back to this
important issue later. What needs to be explained is that at the beginning of the formation
of this collective identity, an existing aspect/element of the text led to two other elements
resalat, peace and harmony, paganism in its various forms was defeated, and human
dignity finally became a reality.
13
The very symbolic gesture of Muslims in different rituals (such as the ritual of laylat al-qadr among
Shi’îs) where everyone opens a Qur’ân and holds it above his or her head, as a sign for taking refuge in the
Qur’ân, is a ritualized interpretation of this unity under the tent of the Qur’ân.
14
As a consequence of believing in the Qur’ân’s divine nature, in many Islamic traditions and cultures,
the physical Qur’ân cannot be touched before making the ablutions. This prohibition expands to its letters
and even its punctuation. The sacredness descends to the words and/or letters as soon as they are written
down or printed down with the intention that they be part of the transcription of the Qur’ân. Once there is a
word from the Qur’ân in any text , the only way for throwing that part of the text away would be to leave it
under running water or buried in soil, so as to allow for the natural process of decomposition to take its
course. There is a debate among muftîs on a possible third option: burning (with good intention) as another
method for decomposing a Qur’ânic word.
15
Much has been written on the integrity of the Qur’ânic text. For one of the earliest examples, see
Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorans. 2nd revised ed. vols. 1 and 2, revised by Freidrich Schwally;
vol. 3 revised by G. Bergsträsser and O. Pretzel. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1909-26.
For one of the most recent examples, see Jane D. McAuliffe, “Reading the Qur’ân with Fidelity and
Freedom.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 73, No. 3 (S 2005): 615-635.
16
Although this finality has been challenged by the Qur’ân itself (i.e. 31:27 or 18:109), Muslims
unanimously believe that the Qur’ân is not only the final scripture, but that all of it, down to its last word,
has been sent down to the Prophet Muḥammad before his death. Moreover, they believe that the Qurân
potentially contains the answer to all human questions until the end of time.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
30
and all three together prepared the ground for creating a new identity called “the ummah
of the Qur’ân.”17
That existing aspect, among others, was the extraordinary literary
beauty of the text leading to believe in the sacredness of the Arabic language,18
and the
spiritual-magical power of the text.19
Arabic poetry contemporary to the revelation of the
Qur’ân reveals early Muslims’ fascination vis-à-vis the incomparable literary beauty of
the Qur’ân.20
The inimitability of the Qur’ân considered by ordinary Muslims as the i‘jâz
of the Qur’ân is, in part, based on this literary beauty of the text.21
Although the very
famous historical debate on the ontology of the Qur’ân being qadîm (uncreated) or ḥadîth
(created) caused the second major schism in Islam, separating the Mu‘tazila (Mu‘tazilîs)
from the Ashâ‘ira (Ash‘arîs),22
theological discussions of this kind were not –and still are
not– followed by ordinary Muslims. Instead, the beauty of the Qur’ânic âyahs has always
been a matter that every Muslim, with a decent degree of knowledge in Arabic, can
perceive and enjoy it on a daily basis. So, those Qur’ânic âyahs inviting Muslims and
non-Muslims to try to produce a sûrah like those revealed to the Prophet, followed by the
announcement of the impossibility of such attempts were popularly interpreted by
17 It is enough to google “the umma of the Qur’ân” (without accent on the “a”) to see thousands of Muslim
web sites that use this very popular expression. On Sep. 19th
, this term appeared 86,300 times on the
internet, and its equivalent in Arabic ummah al-Qur’ân appeared 20,200,000 times.
18
For some recent works on the literary beauty of the Qur’ân in the eyes of early Muslim believers, see
Asma Afsaruddin, “Excellences of the Qurʾan: Textual Sacrality and the Organization of Early Islamic
Society.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 122, No. 1 (Jan.-March 2002): 1-24. See also Nasr
Abu-Zayd, “The Dilemma of the Literary Approach to the Qur’ân.”Journal of Comparative Poetics, No.
23, Literature and the Sacred (2003): 8-47.
19
For an example of a scholarly work on the magical powers of the Qur’ân, see Constant Hames,
“L’usage talismanique du Coran.” Revue de l’histoire des religions, vol. 218, Issue 1 (2001): 83-95.
20
Much has been published in the Muslim world on the literary beauty of the Qur’ân. For an example of
an academic work by a Muslim, see Miraj ul-Islam Zia, “Artistic Beauties of the Qur’ân: A Stylistic
Analysis of Sûrat al-Yûsuf and Sûrat al-Naml.” Research Journal RJIC published by Sheikh Zayed Centre
for Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Peshawar, vol. 1, No. 3 (1991): 1-37. For an example of
a non-Muslim’s work on this subject matter, see Alan Jones, Arabic through the Qur’ân. Cambridge:
Islamic Text Society, 1999.
21
Despite its popularity among ordinary Muslims, the literary beauty of the Qur’ân is not considered as a
miracle by mufassirûn and Muslim erudites. See, for example, many tafâsîr on 2:23 or 10:38.
22
It is now generally believed that the first schism to take place among Muslims happened on the day of
the Prophet’s death, over the question of his succession. The three major branches that later came to be
known as Sunni, Shi’i, and Khariji Islam in the course of the first three centuries of Islamic history
developed their own understanding of what took place on that special day in early Islamic history, in light
of subsequent historical events, such as, in particular, the battle of Siffin (657C.E.).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
31
ordinary Muslims as the Qur’ân’s call to contest its divine literary beauty.23
This ultimate
divine beauty was perceived by early Muslims as a clear evidence for the sacredness of
the Qur’ân’s language. A language that irrespective of the adherent’s ability to
understand it or not, became a medium between the believer and the unreachable divinity
through both oral and written practices. Leonard Librande discusses how the calligraphy
of the Qur’ânic âyahs goes far beyond the transmission of the sacred text among humans,
and becomes a vehicle for the presence of the divine, as well as a tool for the
transmission of the sacredness from the physical Word of God to the calligraphy (or even
the calligrapher).24
This presence of the divine in written words presents itself through a
multifunctional power with three dimensions: the power to bless, the power to heal, and
the power to protect.25
Each function of this power has given birth to its specific rituals.26
23 In fact, many possibilities have been discussed among mufassirûn about this Qur’ânic claim that no one
can bring forth a sûrah like those found the Qur’ân. Some have said that Arabs were very capable of
composing something similar to the Qur’ân, but every time they tried God Himself intervened and disabled
them. This theory called ṣarfa was initially discussed by some Mu‘tazilîs. Others have said that the
inimitable miracle of the text is in its content since it truly reveals about the unknown past and truly
predicts about the future. Other possibilities have also been discussed. Yet, the stylistic beauty of the
Qur’ân is the most popular reason given to explain the Qur’ân’s inimitability. Surprisingly, this aspect has
not been discussed in the many tafâsîr that include comments on the âyahs in question. For an example of
Muslim works on the inimitability (or miracle, i‘jâz) of the Qur’ân, see Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î,
Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân. 20 vols. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî li al-Maṭbû‘ât, 1974, under 10:38,
available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Sep. 4th
2011). For an example of
western scholarly works on the i‘jâz of the Qur’ân, see Jaroslav Stetkevych, “Arabic Hermeneutical
Terminology: Paradox and the Production of Meaning.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 48, No. 2
(April 1989): 81-96.
24
Leonard Librande, “The calligraphy of the Qur’ân: How it functions for Muslims.” Religion, vol. 9,
Issue 1 (Spring 1979): 36-52.
25
Fahmida Suleman categorizes these powers under four categories: “the power of the sacred text to
sanctify, beautify, politicise, or bestow talismanic properties on spaces and objects.” See Fahmida
Sulemen’s introduction in Word of God, Art of Man: The Qur’ân and its Creative Expressions. Edited by
Fahmida Suleman. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 (p. 14).
26
An example for the blessing power of the Qur’ânic text is the tradition of starting a marriage certificate
by a Qur’ânic âyah (mostly 16:72), or hanging Qur’ânic calligraphies on the walls at home. An example for
the healing power of the written form of the Qur’ân is the ritual of writing Qur’ânic âyahs on a tissue, then
putting the tissue on the painful part of the body; or reciting some Qur’ânic âyahs while blowing on nabât
(crystallized sugar), then making a drink with that sugar and giving it to the ill person or writing some
Qur’ânic âyahs with saffron, then dissolving them in water and asking the ill person to drink this water; or
reciting some âyahs and blowing in the four directions to be protected from enemies; an example for the
protecting power of the written form is the tradition of hanging Q 68:51 (in a box made of tissue, silver or
gold) on a newborn’s cloth to protect him/her from evil eye. See Sheikh ‘Abbâs Qomî, Mafâtîḥ al-Janân.
Beirut: Dâr al-Ta‘âruf li al-Maṭbû‘ât, 2009.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
32
Yet, the spiritual-magical power of the oral practice supersedes the power of the written
form.27
The sûrah 113 of the Qur’ân represents Muslims’ indisputable proof for this
power. On the asbâb al-nuzûl of this sûrah, most mufassirûn have mentioned a ḥadîth
according to which a Jew28
asks some women29
to cast a magic spell on the Prophet
through their witchcraft powers. They recite their spells while knotting cords and blowing
in them. Those spells make the Prophet sick (in some versions they make him loose his
memory which makes more sense as a fighting technic against a Prophet), but two angels
come to the Prophet and inform him of what happened. They give him the location of a
well where those knots have been thrown in. The Prophet sends ‘Ali, Zubayr and
’Ammar to find the well and to take out the knots and open them, then to fill the well
with earth.30
Meanwhile Jibril descends and recites sûrah 113 to the Prophet, so he can
undo the magical spell against him by reciting that sûrah.31
Beside this sûrah, the tafâsîr
of some other Qur’ânic âyahs attribute the same metaphysical power to the recitation of
Some Qur’ânic âyahs with saffron, then dissolving it in water and asking the ill person to drink it; an
example for the protecting power of the written form is the tradition of hanging Q 68:51 (in a box made of
tissue, silver or gold) on a newborn’s cloth to protect him/her from evil eye.
27
Almost in each madhhab, one can find numerous books written by Muslims functioning as manuals for
helping adherents benefiting from the magical power of the Qur’ânic words and/or prayers. As an example,
a very popular book of this kind in Shi’î tradition is called Mafâtîḥ al-Janân (lit. keys to the gardens of
paradise). This book can be found beside the Qur’ân in most Shi’î houses. It has been compiled by Sheikh
‘Abbâs Qomî (1255-1310H) and it contains, among other things, detailed instructions for healing diseases,
eliminating enemies’ power, strengthening memory, etc., by using the power of the Qur’ânic words or
âyahs. A variety of techniques are taught in this book. Some of them consist of reciting the âyahs and
blowing in a tissue, then putting the tissue on the painful part of the body or reciting some Qur’ânic âyahs
and blowing into nabât (crystallized sugar), then making a drink with that sugar and giving it to the ill
person, or reciting some âyahs and blowing in the four directions to be protected from enemies. See Sheikh
‘Abbâs Qomî, Mafâtîḥ al-Janân.
28
Some have recorded his name as Lubayd b. A’ṣam (i.e. Ibn Kathîr), and some have recorded it as Lubay
b. Mu‘ṣam (i.e. Abu Bakr al-Jazâ’irî).
29
Fakhr al-Dîn al-Râzî (544-606H) introduces them as Lubayd’s daughters. See Muḥammad b. ‘Umar
Fakhr al-Dîn al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb: al-Tafsîr al-Kabîr. 1st ed. 32 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Fikr, 1982, under
Sûrah Al-Falaq (Chapter 113), available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted
on Sep. 7th
2011).
30
Some mufassirûn (mostly Shi’î), such as Fayḍ al-Kâshânî (d. 1680C.E.), mention only ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib
as the only one receiving this mission from the Prophet. See Mullâ Muḥsin Fayḍ al-Kâshânî, Al-Ṣâfî fi
Tafsîr Kalâm Allâh al-Wâfî. 5 vols. Edited by Ḥusayn al-A‘lamî. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, 1979-82,
under sûrah 113. In his version of the hadiîh, ‘Ali brings the cords to the Prophet, and the Prophet sees 11
open knots in them. Then the angel Jibril descends at the end of the ḥadîth.
31
In some tafâsîr, at the end of the ḥadîth, Jibril recites both sûrahs 113 and 114. For example, see Fayḍ
al-Kâshânî, Al-Ṣâfî fi Tafsîr Kalâm Allâh al-Wâfî, under sûrah 113.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
33
the sacred text, and reconfirm the efficiency of the afore-mentioned power.32
As all other
rituals, the magical result stands on two pillars: the correct and meticulous execution of
the recitation and the faithful belief in it.33
This ceremonial combination of act and belief creates a powerful link between the
adherent and the text, in a way that no outsider will be able to achieve. In turn, this sense
of belonging shapes an allegiance of identity shared by believers having the same sacred
words in hand. In other words, “the ummah of the Qur’ân” becomes an ummah that
recites the Book, believes in it, and is exclusively privileged to benefit from the
metaphysical power of such recitations. In the triangle of “Believer,” “Book,” and
“Divinity,” the book becomes the sign between the believer and the divinity. It reflects
the divinity not only on paper, but also in the believer’s mouth.34
In this sense, the Qur’ân
as a whole becomes “The Sign” of God, and believing in this “Sign,” and building an
individual relationship with it becomes a necessary key to enter the realm of Allâh on
earth as His vicegerent. Jacques Waardenburg briefly explains this necessity by writing:
It is insignificant that hardly anyone who identifies him- or herself as a
Muslim ever exchanges Muslim identity for another one. Although this is
a social fact, there is something elusive about it, since it means different
things at the same time. It implies basically a confession of faith and,
though often indirectly, membership of a Muslim community and of the
Muslim umma at large. Consequently, however “social” a Muslim may be,
an appeal can always be made by fellow Muslims to the fideistic aspect of
Muslim identity. Apparently a Muslim receives his or her identity less by
mere adhering to the “religion” of Islam than by actually becoming aware
of –and arriving at a reasonable insight into– the “signs” of God, reading
and understanding them as such, taking an attitude of Islam towards God,
and participating in communal life with other Muslims, with an adherence
to its basic values and with mutual solidarity.35
In this “formula” suggested by Waardenburg, the Qur’ân, as a whole, becomes “The
32 For example, see the tafâsîr of 68:51.
33
In this case, the correct execution is the pronunciation for the right number of times, at the right moment
of the day, month or year, and in the right place.
34
Under the influence of Christianity (i.e. 1 Cor. 3:17; Mat. 5:11), some Sufîs consider the term
ḥaramullâh (the Harem of Allâh) to refer to a human’s mouth.
35
Jacques Waardenburg, “Islamic Studies and the History of Religions: An Evaluation.” In Mapping
Islamic Studies: Geneology, continuity and Change. Edited by Azim Nanji, 181-219. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 1997 (p. 206).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
34
Sign” over all other signs. In the adherent’s eyes, this relationship with “The Sign” not
only opens the door to a connection between the heavens and earth, but also becomes a
tool in the adherent’s hand to use the heavenly power of God on earth. In this situation,
the miraculous beauty of the text functions as a backbone for believing in the supra-
human nature of the “Book,” its sacredness. In turn, this sacredness is reflected in the
extraordinary power of each and every “part” of the “Book,” its words, letters and
sounds. So, the divine power of the Word of God, as well as a highly distinguishable and
honourable degree of dignity are transferred to the faithful adherent by the means of
recitation.36
1.2.1 The Compilation of the Qur’ân
There is an endless debate among scholars of the Qur’ân (both Muslims and non-
Muslims) on who compiled the first Qur’ân in between two covers. Much has been
written on that matter and it is not our intention here to focus on this debate.37
Our
interest has more to do with the socio-cultural implications of this fact that the Qur’ân
took on a written form in between two covers from a very early time in the formation of
what is called today the “Islamic Empire.” Informed by the Qur’ân, early Muslims were
aware that some of those who had received God’s revelations before them were
privileged to fall under the category of “people of the Book.” In order to become a
member of that privileged “class” of people, early Muslims felt compelled also to have
their own “Book,” so as to achieve the same status of belonging to a people with a divine
scripture, and thus become a “people of the Book” too.38
Muslims’ early conquests of
36 Even today, it is highly appreciated (and considered to be “chic”) if one can use some Qur’ânic
expressions in his or her daily conversations.
37
In his long article entitled Shahrastânî on the Arcana of the Qur’an: A Preliminary Evaluation, Toby
Mayer studies al-Shahristânî’s theory (479-548H) of the compilation and canonization of the Qur’ân. The
article presents, among other things, valuable information on the diversity of Muslim erudites’ opinions on
the compilation of the Qur’ân. See Toby Mayer, “Shahrastânî on the Arcana of the Qur’an: A Preliminary
Evaluation.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 7, No. 2 (2005): 61-100.
38
In fact, the Qur’ân credits ahl al-kitâb on different occasions, and honours them by directly addressing
them in some of its speeches. The third chapter of the Qur’ân contains most of these Qur’ânic admirations
and lovingly blames on ahl al-kitâb. See, for example, 3:20, 23, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 78, 98, 99, 110,
113, 199.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
35
Zoroastrian and Christian territories presented them with a new political situation that
required ruling over nations of “peoples of the book,” which probably only augmented
that need to become their own kind of “people of the Book.” Once a non-Muslim territory
was conquered in the name of God, the inevitable challenge for the conqueror, as the new
ruler, was to find a legitimate source for his superiority. In this matter, the Qur’ân was
not a big help. In fact, the Qur’ânic message calling all people to equality and justice was
against the traditional and well known superior-ruler-inferior-ruled-over power dynamic
accepted in conquered territories within probably most of human history. The Qur’ânic
new concept of ummah initially launched by the Prophet right after his migration to
Medina was causing even a bigger problem.39
That concept appeared frequently in the
ordinance granted by the Prophet called The Pact of Medina (sometimes called The
Constitution of Medina). The word ummah in that text clearly included Jews living in and
around the city of Yathrib giving them the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as
the Muslim followers of the new faith.40
As a model, the pact of Medina granted an equal
social status to the many Jewish and few Christian inhabitants of the conquered regions,
both of whom were part of this concept of the “people of the Book”. Frederick M. Denny
writes:
The ummah of the Constitution is made up of believers and Muslims, and
quite possibly Jews as well (although they may constitute a separate
ummah “alongside”). All the kinship groups mentioned are subsumed
under this ummah idea, a very significant fact. But why are the believers
distinguished from the Muslims? … This preponderance of mu’min(un)
[believer(s)] may indicate an early date for much of the Constitution,
before muslim was used as the name for the followers of Muḥammad, or at
least before it gained a clear technical sense limited to the followers of
Muḥammad.41
We will come back to the term “Muslim” as the main allegiance of a collective identity
39 According to Noldeke’s chronology, the term ummah has first appeared sometime during the Meccan
period, but Watt believes that the term first appeared after the Prophet had already formed his community
at Medina. See William Montgomery Watt, Muḥammad at Medina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956
(p. 240).
40
For a full text of the pact of Medina, see http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm
(consulted on Sep. 4th
2011).
41
Frederick M. Denny, “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 36,
No. 1 (Jan. 1977): 39-47 (p. 43).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
36
shared by the followers of the Prophet Muḥammad. However, before that identity took
shape, in an era of rapid expansion of Islam where the new rulers’ supremacy, as well as
the legitimacy of their power were under question by their own sacred text and/or the
tradition of their own Prophet, the concept of “the ummah of the Qur’ân” having this
particular “Book” in its center with characteristics such as linguistically sacred, non-
recitable and untouchable for non-believers, and offering supra-human strength to its
adherents, enormously helped dividing the new Muslim rulers from the mostly non-
Muslim peoples they ruled over, legitimizing in their view the ruler’s acts of power. This
addition to the existing concept of ummah helped the conquerors to shift from the
anthropocentric nature of the concept of ummah to a more text-centric nature of the same
concept putting the text, and human’s relationship to God, before both the people and
humans’ relationship to other humans, resulting in the superiority of the bearer of the first
relationship to those missing it.
As the first step to achieve this historically preferred superiority in order to secure
stability of political power, and in order to establish this necessary dichotomy using the
text as the divider of “us” from “them,” some early Muslim conquerors needed, before
anything, a uniform text between two covers, so that all those who share the identity of
belonging to the ummah of the text can refer to the same unchangeable sacred text,
clinging to its verses and benefiting from its exclusively offered divine power.42
In this
process, the more independent the identity of this new sacred book did become in
42 The concept of dhimmî is among the most significant results of this early Muslim rulers’ effort to
establish a legal and social dichotomy in the societies living in the conquered non-Muslim regions. As Bat
Ye’or mentions:
Controlling a huge empire, the invading Arab armies were a small minority among the
mass of non-Muslims, mainly Christians and Zoroastrians. The Byzantine and Persian
systems of administration were retained for practical reasons, but a special legislation
regulated the relations between the Arabs and the indigenous people, between Muslims
and non-Muslims. Basing themselves on the Koran and the Traditions, Muslim
theologians elaborated the dhimmi status –that is, that of the non-Muslim indigenous
populations now under Islamic Rule. This body of rules also known as the Covenant of
‘Umar, is variably attributed to the government of ‘Umar I who ruled over the Islamic
Empire from 13H/634 to 23H/644, or to the governance of ‘Umar II who ruled as caliph
from 99H/717 to 101H/720. It is generally agreed by Western orientalists, however, that
this legislation was inconsistent with the liberal policies of the first four caliphs and the
ninety-year dynasty of the Umayyads (41H/661-132H/750). It appears to have evolved
under the early Abbasid rule, at the time when the intolerant religious authorities were
occupied in suppressing heresies and in brutally crushing local revolts.
See Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Granbury, NJ: Associated University Press,
1985 (p. 48).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
37
contrast to that of other older sacred books, the stronger the collective identity of the
adherents to this new book did become. Today, many Muslims consider the Qur’ân as
“an angel of God,” “God’s witness on the day of judgment,” or “an eternally living
creature of God.”43
These attributes reveal to what extent, in some Muslims’ eyes, the
Qur’ân has achieved its independent identity. It is obvious that none of these
attributes/functions would make any sense if the revelations were scattered paragraphs
not compiled under an independent and visible (i.e. material) format (i.e. book), taking on
its own unique and proper identity.
Régis Blachère (1900-1964C.E.) believes that despite the illiteracy of the Prophet
Muḥammad, and his non-intention of gathering the Qur’ânic âyahs together, from the
very beginning of his prophetic mission, he carefully preserved those âyahs by choosing
some of his followers as his secretaries, ordering them to write the oral revelations under
his own supervision. The popular opinion among western scholars is that the Prophet did
not go further and the compilation of those scattered scripts happened a couple of decades
after his death. Much has been written on the reasons behind the first “canonical”
compilation of the revelations in between two covers, sometime during the caliphate of
‘Uthmân ibn ‘Affân (47 before hijra-35H), the third caliph who ruled from 23H/644C.E.
to 35H/656C.E. Ṭâhâ Ḥusayn (1889-1973C.E.) cites a letter from this third caliph to his
governors in which he clearly voices his concerns about the mistaken recitations of the
Qur’ânic âyahs by Arabs and Persians. In this letter, ‘Uthmân informs his governors
about his worries, and the danger of a bid‘a (false or heretical innovation) as a result of
those mistaken recitations.44
Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalânî (773-852H) reports that by the time
of the third Caliph ‘Uthmân, Muslims all around the Islamic Empire were divided into
groups, each group believing in a different version of some Qur’ânic âyahs, and fighting
over those versions. Everyone was trying to prove the authenticity and the trueness of his
own version to the extent of takdhîb (denying) or sometime takfîr (excommunicating)
others. In some mosques, there were two separate collective prayers at the same time
43 For more information, see Mohammad Mohammadî Reyshahrî, Mizân al-Ḥikma. 14 vols. Qum: Dâr al-
Ḥadîth, 1996, under al-qur’ân, available online at http://www.tebyan.net/index.aspx?pid=18382 (consulted
on June 19th
2012).
44
Ṭâhâ Ḥusayn, Al-Fitnat al-Kubrâ. 2 vols. 1st volume translated by Seyyed Ja‘far Shahîdî. Tehran: Ali
Akbar Elmî, 1957 (1:75).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
38
because each group had accepted a different version of the recited âyahs. According to
‘Asqalânî, ‘Uthmân was aware of those disputes and had already ruled over in few cases.
That is why he decided to end those disputes and unify Muslims under the same
“Book.”45
The great mufassir of the Qur’ân Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarîr al-Ṭabarî
(224-310H) believes that although this internal conflict was not a major issue in Abu
Bakr’s caliphate (from 573 to 634C.E.), it had already started in the first caliph’s era.46
He does not see any link between the geopolitics of the Islamic Empire in Abu Bakr’s era
(with a geography that had not yet expanded outside the Arabian Peninsula) and the
“non-importance” of the debates on the Qur’ânic âyahs among Muslims. Neither
mufassirûn nor Muslim historians mention anything about how the compilation of the
first Qur’ân helped the stability and the legitimization of early Muslims’ power, and
solidified their supremacy over non-Muslims in conquered regions. Instead, they present
‘Uthmân’s order as a vital decision to keep Muslims’ unity (as an internal affair) by
putting an end to the divisive debates on the Qur’ân. Whatever the reasons were, both
sets of which are not mutually exclusive in any case, the immediate result of ‘Uthmân’s
decision to compile a “canonical” Qur’ân was the uniformity it brought to the Qur’ân
both in terms of the body of the text and the order of the âyahs and sûrahs. What is
interesting is that we know today about different versions of certain Qur’ânic terms,
âyahs, and in some cases sûrahs because some of those debates have been carefully
preserved, reported and discussed by certain mufassirûn or Muslim historians.47
Yet to
Muslims, this knowledge causes no damage to the solid authenticity and the untouchable
exactitude of the actual uniform Qur’ân. In other words, the Qur’ân is considered by
devout Muslims to be letter by letter the true copy of what has been revealed to the
Prophet. As a result of what was done during ‘Uthmân’s caliphate, today, all Muslims
around the world recite the same text –accent by accent in the same sacred language–
45 Shihâb al-Dîn Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Muḥammad ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalânî, Fatḥ al-Bâri bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥîḥ al-
Bukhârî. 13 vols. Cairo: Dâr Miṣr, 1969 (9:16).
46
Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarîr al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân. 12 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1997 (vol. 1, p. 7), available online at www.almeshkat.net (consulted on Sep. 20th
2011).
47
For a detailed report on the compilation of the Qur’ân, including a complete list of those differences, see
‘Abdullâh b. Sulaymân al-Sijistânî, Kitâb al-Maṣâḥif. Edited by Muḥib al-Dîn Wâ‘iẓ, 2 vols. Beirut: Dâr
al-Bashâr al-Islâmiyyah, 1936.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
39
even if they do not understand a word of what they pronounce. This uniform Qur’ânic
text is at the center of the present research.48
1.3 The ḥadîth 49
Although the term ḥadîth is popularly understood by the majority of Muslims as “a true
saying of the Prophet,” there is a world of not only intellectual debates on the meaning of
each ḥadîth, but also profound scholarly critiques about the degree of authenticity of each
ḥadîth. According to the popular idea among western scholars of Islam, the concept of
ḥadîth, as a divine message for Muslims with a lesser degree of sacredness compared to
the Qur’ân appeared after the death of the Prophet.50
This conviction is rooted in an
48 Some traditional Muslim scholars have considered the whole enterprise of scientific research and
discoveries about the origins of the Qur’ân’s compilation as an islamophobic conspiracy. For an example of
such works, see the 4th
chapter of Dr. Sayyid ‘Abd al-Wadûd’s online book called Conspiracies Against the
Quran. This book is available online at
http://www.parweztv.com/Mufhoom_1/by_G_A_parwez/Conspiracies%20Against%20the%20Quran.htm
(consulted on Sep. 19th
2012).
49
The term ḥadîth is a Qur’ânic term used several times in different contexts (i.e. 39:23; 52:34; 77:50;
68:44). In all of its Qur’ânic appearances, it means “saying” and/or “new saying.” On the reason of this
nomination for the Prophet’s sayings, ‘Asqalânî writes that both the Qur’ân and the sayings of the Prophet
explain God’s aḥkâm (orders), but since the Qur’ân is qadîm (uncreated), the Prophet’s sayings are called
ḥadîth (created and/or new). See Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalânî, Fatḥ al-Bâri bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥîḥ al-Bukhârî. Murtaḍâ
al-Zubaydî (d. 1205H) believes that the khabar (saying) of the Prophet is called ḥadîth because khabar
bears in its meaning an evident possibility of being false or true, so to avoid this disrespect for the sayings
of the Prophet, muḥâddithûn have used the termt hadîh, a term that in this meaning does not directly refer
to a possibility of falsehood. See Murtaḍâ al-Zubaydî. Tâj al-‘Arûs min Jawâhir al-Qâmûs. 20 vols.
Kuwait: Maṭba‘at Ḥukûmat al-Kuwait, 1973, under ḥadîth, available online at
http://archive.org/details/alhelawy09 (consulted on Sep. 20th
2011). Ibn Kathîr goes further and claims that
all sayings of the Prophet, even the simplest one in a daily human context, are revelations repeated by the
Prophet. The only distinction between Qur’ânic âyahs and the Prophet’s sayings is “in the way we recite
them.” See the beginning of the first chapter of the first volume of Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr, available online at
http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-8.html (consulted on Sep. 20th
2011). Finally, another famous
linguist, Jamâl al-Dîn al-Qâsimî (d. 1332H), mentions another possibility for this nomination. He writes
that the Prophet’s sayings are called ḥadîth because they have the power of creating new meanings in their
audiences’ hearts. See Muḥammad Jamâl al-Dîn al-Qâsimî, Qawâ‘id al-Taḥdîth min Funûn Muṣṭalaḥ al-
Ḥadîth. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1979 (p. 61). Other possibilities have also been discussed, but
there is no scientific evidence to prefer one over the other. 50
William A. Graham is among those few who correctly understood the functions of ḥadîth for early
Muslims while the Prophet was still alive. He writes:
Certainly the Qur’ân could never have stood alone as the bulwark of faith, even though it
is the mu‘jizah, the clear “miracle”, which confirms the divine authority of Muḥammad’s
mission. In Islamic terms, this is not so because of the limitations of the Qur’ân, but
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
40
opinion presented by a minority of mufassirûn (most of them Ḥanbalî Sunnîs) who
believed that during his life, the Prophet prohibited Muslims from recording and
preserving his sayings. To support their opinion, they refer to a few aḥâdîth of the
Prophet. In his recent book, Tadwîn al-Sunnah al-Sharifa, Mohammad Reza Hosseinî
Jalâlî studies those aḥâdîth, and criticises their authenticity.51
His conviction is that
ḥadîth as a concept with the afore-mentioned meaning existed in the Prophet’s era, and
the Prophet himself had encouraged Muslims to record his sayings and to follow them as
instructions for a healthy spiritual life. In his work, Jalâlî presents 44 aḥâdîth all in which
the Prophet Muḥammad whether encouraged Muslims to record and preserve his sayings
or gave them permission to live and/or act upon them accordingly.52
Another popular opinion among western scholars of Islam is that the
compendiums of aḥâdîth took shape throughout two centuries after the death of the
Prophet. This might be the case for some Islamic madhâhib such as the Ḥanbalî school,
but for some others such as the Ithnâ’ashari Shi’î, the formation of the first compendiums
of aḥâdîth dates back to the Prophet’s era. From a historico-critical perspective, there is
no doubt that the first two caliphs rigorously prohibited Muslims from recording,
preserving and narrating any ḥadîth. This anti- ḥadîth tradition continued till the caliphate
of the Umayyad Caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azîz (61-101H) who ruled over the Islamic
Empire less than three years (99-101H). The only exception was the short caliphate of the
fourth caliph ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib who gathered a collection of some prophetic aḥâdîth and
confirmed their authenticity by narrating them in his speeches, letters or khuṭbas
because of man’s limitations. The Qur’ân, “being the Word of God, is too sublime to
interpret and decipher without the aid of the Prophet.”
See William A. Graham, Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam. Paris and The Hague:
Mouton and Co., 1977 (p. 33).
51
Seyyed Mohammad Reza Hosseinî Jalâlî, Tadwîn al-Sunnah al-Sharîfa. Qum: Maktab al-A’lâm al-
Islâmî, 1413H (p. 261). Before him, a few other Muslim scholars had focused on the same subject, with the
same conclusion: confirming the non-authenticity of those aḥâdîth according to which the Prophet forbids
his companions from recording and preserving his sayings. For a list of those scholars and their works, see
Hâshim Ma‘rûf al-Ḥasanî, Derâsât fi al-Ḥadîth wa al-Muḥâddithîn. Beirut: Dâr al-Ta‘âruf li al-Maṭbû‘ât,
1978.
52
Ibid., 87-99. Some early Muslim scholars (all of them Sunnîs) have affirmed the legitimacy of that
strategic prohibition. They have presented 4 rational reasons behind it. In a very detailed and meticulous
study, Seyyed Mohammad Kazem Tabâtabâ’î analyses those reasons and tries to disapprove them. See
Seyyed Kâzem Tabâtabâ’î Yazdî, Âshenâyee ba Târikh va Manâbe’-e Hadîs. Qum: Hâjar, 1380 Solar hijra.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
41
(preaches).53
Many narratives about this prohibition have been recorded by both
muḥâddithûn and Muslim historians. For example, in his book “Tadhkira,” Muḥammad
b. Aḥmad al-Dhahabî (673-748H) mentions a ḥadîth from Aîsha (the daughter of Abu
Bakr (50 before hijra-13H) and the wife of the Prophet) who says:
My father [Abu Bakr] had recorded and preserved 500 aḥâdîth from the
Prophet. One night he had a bad and uncomfortable sleep. When he woke
up, he was sad. I asked him about his sadness. When the sun rose, he told
me: “my daughter, please bring to me all the aḥâdîth that are with you.” I
brought everything, and he burnt them all till the last one. I asked him:
“why did you burn the Prophet’s aḥâdîth?” He answered: “I am afraid to
die while having in hand the aḥâdîth that I have received from someone
whom I have trusted in, and they might not be as being narrated to me.54
Khaṭîb al-Baghdâdi (d. 463H) narrates an important historical event during the
governance of the second caliph ‘Umar. He writes:
It was reported to ‘Umar ibn Khattâb [the second caliph] that some books
and some aḥâdîth have appeared in people’s hands.55
This upset the
caliph. He told to people: “It has been reported to me that some books
have appeared among you. Know that the strong ones [good ones] are
those loved by God.” Then he asked people to bring all those books to
him, so he can judge them. People thought that he will help them sort
those controversial aḥâdîth using the right criteria, so they can recognize
the good-authentic aḥâdîth from the false ones. Everybody brought
everything he had. Then when all writings were gathered, ‘Umar ordered
to set fire on them and burnt them all.56
Muslim historians have reported that to prevent any diffusion of the aḥâdîth, the second
caliph called those companions of the Prophet who had narrated ḥadîth from the Prophet
to come and live in Medina, not letting them leave the city. In some cases, ‘Umar walled
in those few who resisted and kept narrating ḥadîth. Al-Dhahabî mentions the names of
53 See Sayyid al-Sharîf al-Raḍî ed., Nahj al-Balâghah. 49
th ed. Translated into Persian by Mohammad
Dashtî. Qum, Iran: Amir al-Mo’menîn Publication, 2010.
54
Abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthmân al-Dhahabî, Tadhkirat ul Ḥifâẓ wa Zyoulihî . 4 vols.
Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1998 (1:5). ‘Abd al-Ḥamîd Ṣâ’ib mentions this ḥadîth with a list of
different sources where it can be found. See ‘Abd al-Ḥamîd Ṣâ’ib, Târikh al-Islâm al-Thiqâfî wa al-Syâsî:
Maṣâr al-Islâm Ba‘d al-Rasûl wa Nash’at al-Madhâhib. Tehran: al-Ghadîr, 1417H (pp. 362-363).
55
Baghdâdî does not mention if by “kutub wa aḥâdîth” (books and aḥâdîth), the first narrator of the
ḥadîth means “books of aḥâdîth,” or “books some of which were books of aḥâdîth.”
56
Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Thâbit Khaṭîb al-Baghdâdî, Taqyîd al-‘Ilm. Damascus: no publisher, 1949 (p. 52).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
42
some of the most respectful companions of the Prophet such as Ibn Mas‘ûd, Abu Dardâ’,
and Abu Mas‘ûd al-Anṣârî who, because of narrating ḥadîth, spent a period of their lives
in ‘Umar’s jails.57
Despite this rigorous prohibition of the first three caliphs in particular, within a
few decades after the death of the Prophet, thousands of aḥâdîth were in circulation in
nascent Muslim community. But many of those aḥâdîth were contradicting each other,
and some were even contradicting very clear Qur’ânic passages. While ordinary Muslims
were memorizing and adopting anything that came to fall under the name of their
Prophet, concerns and discussions among muḥâddithûn and mufassirûn (mostly tabi’ûn)
began to emerge rapidly.
The emergence of ‘îlm al- ḥadîth (the science of ḥadîth), less than a century after
the death of the Prophet, is the result of those discussions and debates. At its inception,
the initial focus of ‘ilm al- ḥadîth was on two things: the chains of transmission (isnâds)
of each ḥadîth, and the philological-morphological-exegetical effort to understand better
the exactmeaning of each particular saying of the Prophet (fiqh al- ḥadîth).58
It is obvious
that from the very beginning of ‘ilm al- ḥadîth, two sciences of history (al-târikh), and
grammar and syntax (al-ṣarf wa al-naḥw) were involved.59
Later, the political context of
57 Al-Dhahabî, Tadhkirat al Ḥifâẓ wa Dhyoulihî, 1:75.
58
Fiqh al-ḥadîth is also sometimes called dirâyat al-ḥadîth, uṣûl al-ḥadîth, qawâ’id al-ḥadîth or muṣṭalaḥ
al-ḥadîth. There is a whole debate among Muslim scholars if all these terms refer to the same science or
not. Some have believed that there are nuances between scientific methods used in fiqh al-ḥadîth and
dirâyat al-ḥadîth, while some others have considered all of them to be different names for the same
science.
59
Despite the existence of what can be considered as traces of a pre-science of ḥadîth in the first century
after the death of the Prophet, the first extent book written on this science dates back only to the end of the
4th
century hegira. Some Muslim historians consider Abu ‘Abdullâh al-Nayshâbûrî (321-403H) to be the
author of the first book ever written on the sciences of ḥadîth. His book Al-Mustadrak ‘alâ al-Ṣaḥîḥayn is
a collection of aḥâdîth (8803 aḥâdîth) that al-Nayshâbûrî has selected from the two Ṣiḥâḥs of Bukhârî and
Muslim. His other book, Ma‘rifat al-‘Ulûm al-Ḥadîth, is an elaborated work on the scientific methods that
he has used in his selection of ahâdîh. However, Mohammad Hasan Rabbânî writes in his book that al-Qârî
writes that ‘Asqalânî believed that Qâḍî Abu Muḥammad Râmhurmuzî (d. 360H) is the first one who has
ever written a book (Al-Muḥâddith al-Fâsil Bayn al-Râwî wa al-Wa‘î) on the sciences of ḥadîth. Rabbânî
mentions page 137 as his reference in Mullâ ‘Ali al-Qârî’s book called Sharḥ Sharḥ Nukhbat al-Fikr fi
Muṣṭalaḥât Ahl al-Athar. This book has been e-published by Maktabat al-Mishkât al-Islâmiyyah, available
online at http://www.sfhatk.com/vb/uploaded/471_1218518168.zip. I consulted the book on October 12th
2011, and could not find what Rabbânî has read in the book. See Mohammad Hasan Rabbânî, Dânesh-e
Derâyat al- Hadîs Hamrâh bâ nemouneh hâ-ye Hadîsî va Feqhî, Mashhad: Dâneshgâh-e Oloum-e Eslâmî-
ye Razavî, 1389 Solar hijra (p. 6).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
43
the big schism between Shi’îs and Sunnîs brought about the development of new sciences
to help each party decide about the authenticity of aḥâdîth. The first two newly involved
sciences were ‘ilm al-ansâb (genealogy) and ‘ilm al-rijâl (the science of men). While ‘ilm
al-ansâb was helping muḥâddithûn and mufassirûn confirm the trueness of the existence
of a narrator in the chains of transmission of a ḥadîth, ‘ilm al-rijâl’s main focus was on
providing biographies for each narrator found in the isnâd of a ḥadîth. A narrator’s
lifestyle, personality, deeds, moods, and even rumours around him were the points of
interest for scholars of ‘ilm al-rijâl. As a consequence, Sunnî scholars refused to accept
the veracity of Shi’î muḥâddithûn, and wiped off many aḥâdîth having a Shi’î narrator in
their isnâd, and Shi’î scholars did the same to some aḥâdîth having a Sunnî companion in
their chain of narrators. By the beginning of the second century after the death of the
Prophet, working on a ḥadîth, as the subject matter of a scholarly study, required
knowledge in several sciences that all together formed, and still do today, what is called
‘ulûm al-ḥadîth (sciences of hadiîh).60
These sciences gave birth to tons of meticulous categories of ḥadîth, hundreds of
definitions, and thousands of technical terms. This thesis tries to respect as much as
possible, the authenticity of aḥâdîth that are used as they have been gathered by both
Sunnîs and Shi’îs in mostly the second century of Islamic history. At the same time, it is
important to recognize hat the number of aḥâdîth whose authenticity is unanimously
accepted among muḥâddithûn is so little that if one decides only to keep those as an
acceptable source for historical research, his/her research will not be able to go beyond
some basic concepts such as the uniqueness of Allâh or the messengerhood of the Prophet
Muḥammad. Conversely, if one carries out any research using aḥâdîth found in the
respective compilations eventually adopted by Sunnîs and Shi’îs, as is the case in the
methodology used for this thesis, it will become inevitable that any reader will find a
60 To have a sense of how far those sciences have gone, it is enough to take a look at the scientific
categorisation of aḥâdîth according to their authenticity. In his book, Al-Tadrîb al-Râwi fi Sharḥ Taqrîb al-
Nawâwî, Suyûṭî mentions 65 different categories. Hâzemi believes that there are 100 categories of ḥadîth.
Kazem Modir Shanchi mentions 39 categories in his summary of the book Kitâb ‘Ilm al-Ḥadîth. See Jalâl
al-Dîn al-Suyûṭî, Tadrîb al-Râwi fi Sharḥ Taqrîb al-Nawâwî. Beirut: Dâr Ṭibâ‘, 2009. See also Kâzem
Modîr Shânchi, “Estelâhât-e Marbout beh Anvâ’-e Hadîs.” E-published by Mo’assesseh-ye Farhangî va
Ettelâ’ Resânî-ye Tebyân, available online at
http://www.andisheqom.com/Files/hadîth.php?idVeiw=29549&level=4&subid=29549 (consulted on Sep.
7th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
44
muḥâddith who does not consider as authentic one ḥadîth or another used in this thesis.
This reality is true for any scientific work that uses aḥâdîth as its data, and the more the
researcher is aware of this problem, the better he/she can understand the reason behind
the incredible diversity of dogmas and rituals that emerged in the course of the last
fourteen century of Islamic history.
Acknowledging the afore-mentioned limits that affect the reading of this thesis, I
now explain the two kinds of aḥâdîth used in this thesis: the aḥâdîth on Jesus and the
aḥâdîth from Jesus recorded and narrated by Muslim muḥâddithûn. In this relatively
narrow selection of aḥâdîth, both Shi’î and Sunnî sources have been used. For the Shi’î
collections, the four main Shi’î compendium of sources have been used. They are: Kitâb
al-Kâfi collected by Muḥammad b. Ya‘qub al-Kulaynî (258-328H)61
, Man Lâ Yahḍuruhu
al-Faqîh collected by al-Shaykh al-Ṣadûq (306-381H)62
, as well as Tahdhîb al-Aḥkâm
and al-Istibṣâr fimâ Ikhtulifa min al-Akhbâr both collected by Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b.
Ḥasan al-Ṭûsî (385-460H).63
For the Sunnî collections, six have been used: Ṣaḥîḥ al-
Bukhârî collected by Muḥammad b. Ismâ‘îl al-Bukhârî (194-256H),64
Ṣaḥîḥ Muslim,
collected by Muslim b. al-Ḥajjâj (206-261H),65
Sunan ibn Mâjah collected by Abu
‘Abdullâh Muḥammad ibn Mâjah (c. 207-273H),66
Sunan Abu Dâwûd collected by Abu
Dâwûd al-Sijistânî (202-275H),67
Jâmi‘ al-Tirmidhî collected by Muḥammad b. ‘Isâ al-
61 Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb al-Kulaynî, Kitâb al-Kâfi. 8 vols. Tehran: Dâr al-Kutub al-Islâmiyyah, 1365
Solar hijra.
62
Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. ‘Ali Shaykh al-Ṣadûq, Man Lâ Yahḍaruhu al-Faqîh, 4 vols. Qum:
Mu’asseseh-ye-Enteshârât-e-Eslâmî, 1413H.
63
Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Ṭûsî, Tahdhîb al-Aḥkâm. 10 vols. Edited by Ali Akbar Ghaffârî.
Tehran: Dâr al-kutub al-Islâmiyyah, 1390H. Also Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Ṭûsî, Al-Istibṣâr fimâ
Ikhtulifa min al-Akhbâr. 4 vols. Tehran: Dâr al-kutub al-Islâmiyyah, 1390H.
64
Muḥammad b. Ismâ‘îl al-Bukhârî, Ṣaḥîḥ al-Bukhârî. 3rd
edition. Beirut: Dâr Ibn Kathîr, 1987. E-
published by Maktabat al-Islâmiyyah al-Shâmila, available online at http://sh.rewayat2.com/hadîth2/
(consulted on Oct. 12th
2011).
65
Abu Ḥusayn Muslim al-Ḥajjâj, Al-Jâmi‘ al-Ṣaḥîḥ. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Turâth al-‘Arabî. E-published
by Maktabat al-Taqrîb, available online at http://www.taghrib.org/library/book2.php?bi=820 (consulted on
Oct. 12th
2011).
66
Abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad b. Yazîd ibn Mâjah, Sunan Ibn Mâjah. 5 vols. Edited by Bashâr ‘Awâd
Ma‘rûf. Beirut: Dâr al-Jîl, 1998. E-published by Multaqâ Ahl al-Ḥadîth, available online at
http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=87201 (consulted on Oct. 12th
2011).
67
Abu Dâwûd Sulaymân b. al-Ash‘ath al-Sijistânî, Sunan Abu Dâwûd. 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Risâlat al-
‘Âlamiyyah, 2009. E-publsished by Maktabat al-Waqfiyyah, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=6140 (consulted on Oct. 12th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
45
Tirmidhî (209-279H)68
, and Sunan al-Ṣughrâ (also called Sunan al-Nisâ’î) collected by
Aḥmad b. Shu‘ayb al-Nisâ’î (214-303H).69
1.4 The tafsîr
It is not insignificant to start this section with mentioning that the term tafsîr appears only
once in the Qur’ân. It reads:
وتحدة يه ٱلقرءان جمة ل فروا لول نز وقال ٱلذين اد لب ت بهۦ ڪذتل ول ورت
ه ترتيل ـوا بٱلح وأحسن تفسير ـو إل جئ بم يأتون
And those who disbelieve say: Why is the Qur’ân not revealed unto him
all at once? (It is revealed) thus that We may strengthen thy heart
therewith; and We have arranged it in right order. And they bring thee no
similitude but We bring thee the Truth (as against it), and better (than their
similitude) as argument.70
(25:32-3)
No other forms of the term have been used in the Qur’ân. Instead the term ta’wîl appears
seventeen times in the Qur’ân, meaning an intellectual reflection fortified by a gift of
knowledge from God leading to the ability of revealing the meanings behind things. Here
is an example for ta’wîl in the Qur’ân:
ت ـو به ـو ب وأخر متش ـو ت هن أم ٱلكت ـو حكم مت ـو ه ءاي ب م ـو ٱلكت ي ا ٱلذين هو ٱلذى أنزل أم
ه ٱبتغاء ٱلفتة وٱبتغاء تأويه به م ـو يتبعون ما تش وما يعم تأويه ۦى قوبهم زيغ ون ۥ إل ٱلل ت وٱلر
ا د رب ن م م يقولون ءاما بهۦ ب ى ٱلع ـو أولوا ٱللب ر إل وما يذ
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muḥammad) the Scripture wherein
are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others
(which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue,
forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking
to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are
of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord;
68 Muḥammad b. ‘Isâ al-Tirmidhî, Jâmi‘ al-Tirmidhî. A copy of the online version prepared by the
Egyptian Ministry of Awqâf. E-published by Maktabat al-Islâmiyyah al-Shâmila, available online at
http://sh.rewayat2.com/hadîth2/ (consulted on Oct. 12th
2011).
69
Aḥmad b. Shu‘ayb al-Nisâ’î, Sunan al-Nisâ’î. 2nd
edition. Halab: maktabat al-Maṭbû‘ât al-Islâmiyyah,
1986. E-published by Maktabat al-Islâmiyyah al-Shâmila, available online at
http://sh.rewayat2.com/hadîth2/ (consulted on Oct. 12th
2011).
70
Here Pickthall translates tafsîr as “argument.” Muḥsin Khân, Shâkir, and Dr. Ghâlî translate it as
“explanation,” and Yusuf Ali translates it as “significance.”
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
46
but only men of understanding really heed.71
(3:7)
It seems that for the Qur’ân, ta’wîl goes beyond the human philological-morphological
efforts with the purpose of better understanding the meaning(s) of a text.72
7:52-53 reads:
مون ل قوم يى ورحمة م هد ىو ه ـو ب ص ـو هم بكت ـو يظرون إل تأويه ولقد جئ يوم يأتى ۥ ه
ا من شفعاء يشفعوا ل تأويه ا بٱلح ه ل رب ر قد جاء ير ۥ يقول ٱلذين نسوه من قب ا أو نرد عم
ا نعم ا ڪانوا يفترون ٱلذى م م قد خسروا أنفسم و
Verily We have brought them a Scripture which We expounded with knowledge,
a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe. Await they aught save the
fulfilment thereof? On the day when the fulfilment thereof cometh, those who
were before forgetful thereof will say: The messengers of our Lord did bring the
Truth! Have we any intercessors, that they may intercede for us? Or can we be
returned (to life on earth), that we may act otherwise than we used to act? They
have lost their souls, and that which they devised hath failed them. (7:52-53)
This rare usage of the term tafsîr, and the strong and frequent presence of the term ta’wîl
71 Although ta’wîl is an infinitive derived from a, w, l, here it is not used as a verb. However, Pickthall
translates it as “to explain.” Yusuf Ali and Mohsin Khân translate it as “hidden meaning,” and Dr. Ghâlî
and Shâkir translate it as “interpretation.” The other usages of the term in the Qur’ân clearly reveals that the
term refers to the human capacity to decode hidden messages behind a dream, an event or a natural scene.
In 12:6, 21, 44, 100, and 101, the term refers to Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams. In 18:78 and 82, Moses
is told by his mysterious unnamed companion that very soon Moses will be informed about the
interpretations of some strange deeds of his companion. In 4:59, the âyah orders Muslims to refer all
debates and conflicts to God and his Prophet, so they can interpret the truth and judge between them. 17:35
is probably the most complicated one. It reads: “Fill the measure when ye measure, and weigh with a right
balance; that is meet, and better in the end.” Here the term has been translated as “in the end,” somewhat
saying that the final determination will have a better (fairest) outcome if merchants are careful in their
measurings. Here and after, Shâkir’s translations are available online at
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/translations/shakir/015.htm (consulted on Sep. 10th
2011). Here and
after, Dr. Ghâlî’s translations are available online at http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ (consulted on
Sep. 10th
2011).
72
Khorramshâhî believes that unlike tafsîr, ta’wîl focuses on the inner meaning of the âyahs. He tries to
answer if such a knowledge is reachable for humans or not. He writes:
Most scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah believe that the ta’wîl of the Qur’ân, that is, its inner
and esoteric meanings and interpretation of ambiguous and difficult verses of the Qur’ân,
known as the mutashabihat, are known only to God. Most of Shi’î scholars and some
belonging to the Ahl al-Sunnah and other sects believe that the ta’wîl or true
interpretation of Qur’ânic mutashâbihât is also known to those who have learned
knowledge of the scripture and are, as referred to by a Qur’ânic phrase, râsikhûna fi al-
‘ilm (firmly grounded in knowledge).
See Bahâ al-Dîn Khorramshâhî, “Is the Ta’wîl of the Qur’ân Known Only to God?” The Message of
Thaqalayn, vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn 1997/1418H): no page number, available online at
http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_quran_tawil.htm (consulted on Oct. 14th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
47
in the Qur’ân has attracted the attention of only a few western scholars of Qur’ânic
Studies. As an example, although “Qur’ânic Christians” is a scholarly work mainly
focused on the interpretation of the Qur’ân, its author Jane D. McAuliffe exclusively uses
the term tafsîr. She does not to use ta’wîl in her analysis. Her book’s index mentions only
three times the word ta’wîl.73
In a footnote, McAuliffe briefly mentions that tafsîr and
ta’wîl were “apparently synonymous in the earliest period” and that their significations
“began to diverge as the Qur’ânic sciences developed in the classical period.”74
She
writes:
Tafsîr remained the term of more limited denotation, often restricted
largely to philological exegesis, while ta’wîl connoted hermeneutical
approaches that sought to uncover deeper meanings in the text or to align
73 On page 18, McAuliffe cites a Prophetic prayer in which the Prophet asks God to give to Ibn ‘Abbâs a
good understanding in religion and to teach him interpretation. The term used in the prayer and translated
by McAuliffe as “interpretation” is ta’wîl. See Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians: An Analysis
of Classical and Modern Exegesis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991 (p. 18, n. 15 and n. 19).
74
In his article entitled The Development of Theory on Qur’ânic Exegesis in Islamic Scholarship,
Yeshayahu Goldfeld cites the famous commentator of the Qur’ân, al-Kalbî (d. 763C.E.) reporting a
discussion of Ibn ‘Abbâs (3 before hijra-68H) discussing the difference between ta’wîl and tafsîr. This
simply means that contrary to what McAuliffe believes, from the very beginning of the emergence of tafsîr,
mufassirûn (at least some of them) were aware of this distinction. On page 15 of his article, Goldfeld
writes:
The commentator al-Kalbî (d. 763) reports on the authority of the master of his exegetic
school, ‘Abdullâh b. ‘Abbâs (d. 687), the founder of Islamic Qur’ân interpretation: ‘The
Qur’ân has four aspects (‘alâ arba‘ati awjuhin): Explanation (Tafsîr) known to scholars,
Arabic understood by the Arabs, lawful and prohibited of which people (al-Nâs) cannot
be ignorant, and commentary (Ta’wîl) known only to God, mighty and exalted be He.’
When asked what was meant by Ta’wîl, Ibn ‘Abbâs replied: ‘What is going to happen in
the future (mâ huwa kâ’inun).’ The first and fourth aspects of the theory of Ibn ‘Abbâs
mention two kinds of investigation necessary to understand Qur’ânic revelation- Tafsîr or
simple exoteric explanation, presumably of legal matters, and Ta’wîl esoteric
commentary, presumably on prophetic themes, the veracity of which commentary can be
known to God only. Even if we presume that the explanation of Ta’wîl at the end of the
text is a later emendation, we must admit that Ibn ‘Abbâs employs two Qur’ânic technical
terms for two kinds of interpretation, presumably literal and allegorical. The second
aspect, Arabic linguistic investigation, seems to pertain to the third aspect, the lawful and
prohibited by divine ordinance, by which Arabs or Arabs and Muslims or mankind,
depending on the possible outlook of that time, must abide. al-nâs could refer to Arabs
only, as old texts employ the word, or to Muslims or mankind, Ibn ‘Abbâs having no
doubt been aware of islamization which came in the wake of the conquests. On the other
hand, Tafsîr and Ta’wîl of the Qur’ân deal, according to this theory, with language and
law.
For the full article, see Yeshayahu Goldfeld, “The Development of Theory on Qur’ânic Exegesis in Islamic
Scholarship.” Studia Islamica, No. 67 (1988): 5-27.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
48
the text with particular theological or philosophical orientations.75
For any further explanations, McAuliffe refers her readers to another scholar, Jaroslav
Stetkevych. He is among those few western scholars who pay special attention to this
differentiation.76
In his article published a couple of years before McAuliffe’s book,
entitled Arabic Hermeneutical Terminology: Paradox and the Production of Meaning, he
makes a clear distinction between tafsîr and ta’wîl, considering the first to mean an
“explanatory exegesis” and the latter to mean an “interpretative exegesis.” He mentions
four exegetic terms of tafsîr, sharḥ, tabyîn and ta’wîl and states that ta’wîl “… [leans]
pre-eminently towards what we have so far discussed as hermeneutics, while the other
terms would in sense and method be closer to explanatory rather than interpretative
exegesis, and to basic philological elucidation (sharḥ).” To him, while sharḥ and tabyîn
must be classified under tafsîr, ta’wîl is of another nature. To Stetkevychm the Qur’ân is
very aware of this difference, and purposely uses ta’wîl when it talks about “the “reading
in” of figurative or metaphorical meaning” of the text. But like McAuliffe, he believes
that to the devout readers of the Qur’ân, this distinction has been slowly developed within
time having to face many accusations of heresy. He writes:
Quite understandably, therefore, ta’wîl as a hermeneutical term concerns
itself primarily with “covert, or virtual meaning, or it reduces meaning to
its ultimate intent” it makes it return. The assumption of the “ultimate
intent” in ta’wîl as it stands in dialectical tension between first-as-last and
last-as-first is then also the basis of the cognitive paradox. Especially as a
scriptural/ Qur’ânic hermeneutical method, tawîl was a natural challenge
to an orthodoxy that based itself on literal textuality. Its methodological
embrace by the Mu‘tazilah was an escape from the anthropomorphist
entrapment of a literal reading of the qur’ânic text (“the hand of God”/”the
power of God”). It might have been no more than an apology for an
underlying, reasoned-out orthodoxy. Instead, it was rejected as heresy. Its
further elaboration by the Brethren of Purity (Ikhwân al-Ṣafâ), although
interesting, was only a fleeting cultural-historical episode. In the hands of
75 McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 18.
76
Stetkevych mentions that this idea of a distinction between ta’wîl and tafsîr has been discussed before
him by Suzanne P. Stetkevych on two occasions: in her work “Toward a Redefinition of ‘Badî‘’ Poetry.”
Journal of Arabic Literature 12 (1981): 3-29, as well as in the first chapter of her book (according to
Jaroslav Stetkevych at that time under publication) entitled The Tragacanth’s Fruit: Aba Tammâm and the
Poetics of the Abbasid Age. See Jaroslav Stetkevych, “Arabic Hermeneutical Terminology: Paradox and the
Production of Meaning.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 48, No. 2 (April 1989): 81-96 (p. 92).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
49
the Shi’ah it remained an imaginative and searching tool of “covert and
virtual meaning” only for as long as Shi’ism itself had not become the
prisoner of its own sense of dogmatic textuality. It was mostly in mystical
(sûfî) hermeneutics.77
Seven years before Stetkevych publishes his article, Ahmad Mohmed Ahmad Galli
discusses the issue of tafsîr and ta’wîl in detail. In his article published in 1982, and
entitled Some Aspects of al-Mâturîdî’s Commentary on the Qur’ân, Galli studies the
commentary of Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmûd Abu Manṣûr al-Mâturîdî (250-
333H), and his definitions of tafsîr and ta’wîl. Galli writes:
The title of al-Mâturîdî’s commentary on the Qur’ân: Ta’wîlât al-Qur’ân
or Ta’wîlât ahl as-Sunna indicates that he is among the first commentators
to use the term ta’wîl instead of tafsîr, for the exposition of the Qur’ân,
and this has some significance. Originally the terms tafsîr and ta’wîl were
used interchangeably, for the exposition of the Qur’an; in the course of
time, however, various differentiations between the two terms were
introduced, and tafsîr was mainly used for the external philological
exegesis, while ta’wîl was used for the exposition of the subject matter of
the Quir’ân. Al-Mâturîdî’s definition of the two terms is unique and to
some extent discloses his method of interpretation. To al- Mâturîdî, tafsîr
means the giving of a definite meaning to the verse, and the only people
suited to such a task are the companions of the Prophet, because they were
contemporaries of the Prophet and witnessed all the events and
circumstances in which the Qur’ân was revealed. They also had
knowledge of the Prophet’s commentary and explanation of the verses and
were well conversant with the occasions of the revelation (asbâb an-
nuzûl). Those companions, however, did not give their opinions on the
verses of the Qur’ân because tafsîr is not subject to various opinions, but
they conveyed what they had witnessed and received from the Prophet. In
the light of this concept of tafsîr, al- Mâturîdî said, the saying of the
Prophet, “Whoever interprets the Qur’ân according to his personal
opinion, will take his place in the fire”, becomes clear. The meaning of
ta’wîl, however, is to give all the possible meanings implied in the verse,
therefore it is not limited to the companions of the Prophet as tafsîr, but is
open to all qualified scholars. There are no restrictions on ta’wîl, because
unlike tafsîr, ta’wîl does not state that God meant a certain meaning by a
certain verse, but it is simply an attempt to disclose or discover the
77 Jaroslav Stetkevych, “Arabic Hermeneutical Terminology: Paradox and the Production of Meaning.”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 48, No. 2 (April 1989): 81-96 (p. 92).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
50
meaning which might possibly be implied in the verse; its utmost
achievement is to point out that the meaning of a verse might be so or so.78
It is not surprising to know that Mâturîdî’s unusual definitions of tafsîr and ta’wîl do not
succeed to survive by other mufassirûn’s acceptance, and the term ta’wîl does not find its
merited place, as Mâturîdî wishes it, in the science of the Qur’ânic exegesis. However, it
is disturbing to see that Galli’s article does not receive any attention from scholars who,
later, study the issue. As a matter of fact, Galli is probably the first western scholar who
includes the question of tafsîr versus ta’wîl in his work, and he merits to be recognized
for that.
In the world of Muslim scholars, probably the most detailed explanations about
the difference between the two Qur’ânic concepts of ta’wîl and tafsîr can be read in the
works of famous Shi’î mufassir ‘Allâmah Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î
(1892-1981C.E.). Unlike McAuliffe and Stetkevych, Ṭabâṭabâ’î believes that from the
very beginning of the history of the Qur’ân, Muslim erudites knew the difference
between these two Qur’ânic concepts. So, while focusing on ta’wîl throughout the history
of the Qur’ân, he presents different opinions of Muslim erudites on the possible meanings
of these two terms. To Ṭabâṭabâ’î, the importance of ta’wîl in the understanding of the
Qur’ânic message is inevitable. He writes:
…al-Ta’wîl is not a peculiarity of the ambiguous verses; it is an attribute
of the whole Qur’ân; decisive verses have their al-Ta’wîl, as do the
ambiguous ones. [also] …al-Ta’wîl is not the meaning of a word; it is
some real fact found outside the imagination. When we say that this verse
has an al-Ta’wîl, we mean that the verse describes a real fact (past or
future) or a real happening, which in its turn points to another reality -- and
that is its al-Ta’wîl, or final interpretation.79
Ṭabâṭabâ’î mentions 11 different opinions on the meaning of ta’wîl, and its differences
with tafsîr. He then criticises all of them and concludes:
One defect is common to all: They presume that “interpretation” is the
meaning of the verse, or that it is the happening or cause to which the
78 Ahmad Mohmed Ahmad Galli, “Some Aspects of al-Mâturîdî’s Commentary on the Qur’ân.” Islamic
Studies, vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring 1982): 3-21 (pp. 3-4).
79
Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, “The Concept of al-Ta’wîl in the Qur’ân.” The Message of
Thaqalayn, vol. 2 (1995): 21-40.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
51
verse refers. But it has been explained that “interpretation” is not the
meaning of a verse -- it does not matter whether the meaning is the
apparent one or is against it. Also, it has been clarified that although
interpretation is a real event or fact, but not every event -- it is that fact
with which the word has the same relation as a proverb has with its
purpose; or as an exterior has with its interior.
Interpretation is that reality to which a verse refers; it is found in all verses,
the decisive and the ambiguous alike; it is not a sort of a meaning of the
word; it is a real fact that is too sublime for words; Allâh has dressed them
with words so as to bring them a bit nearer to our minds; in this respect
they are like proverbs that are used to create a picture in the mind and thus
help the hearer to clearly grasp the intended idea. That is why Allâh has
said: (I swear) by the Book that makes manifest (the truth); surely We
have made it an Arabic Qur’ân, so that you may understand. And surely it
is in the original of the Book with Us, truly elevated, full of wisdom (43:2-
4). And this thing has been explicitly and implicitly mentioned in several
Qur’ânic verses.80
Unlike ta’wîl, the only Qur’ânic usage of tafsîr refers to a triangular communication
between God, the Prophet and pagans by the means of language. Having pagans in the
triangle when they have frequently been blamed in the Qur’ân for their poor
understanding of the truth points to the evident literary aspect of “the better tafsîr,” and
makes it a morphological characteristic of that communication.81
That explains why the
first group of Muslim erudite who worked on the meanings of the Qur’ân were called al-
mufassirûn, and not al-mu’awwilûn. In fact, they were considering themselves, at their
best, to be linguistics and philologists trying to understand and to explain the Qur’ân’s
ẓâhir (outward) or al-baṭn al-awwal (first layer of the inward meanings) through
uncovering its literal meaning. The raison d’être of the tafsîr explained by some
mufassirûn confirms the dominance of this literary aspect of tafsîr. They mention three
main reasons for the necessity of tafsîr: first, that the Qur’ân contains expressions with
deeper meanings; second, that for a reason that Allâhu a‘lam (God knows better), in
many âyahs some points vital to the understanding of the subject matter of those âyahs
80 Ibid. Although Ṭabâṭabâ’î does not call it a theory, his conclusion possesses all the characteristics of a
subtheory in hermeneutics. In the sense presented in Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s conclusion, this thesis tries to reveal the
ta’wîl of the concerned âyahs on the crucifixion more than their tafsîr.
81
Knowing the grey borders between tafsîr and ta’wîl, another term that must necessarily be studied is
ta‘bîr (the interpretation of vision or dream). Many Muslim muḥâddithûn and mufassirûn have consecrated
parts of their books to ta‘ bîr as a scientific method of interpretation beside tafsîr and ta’wîl, but this term
and its methods remain beyond the scope of this thesis.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
52
are omitted by God; and third, that some of Qur’ânic words bear more than one possible
meaning.82
Despite this simple and clear starting point for the Qur’ânic use of the word tafsîr
in its formative period, the rapid expansion of the Islamic community and the
establishment of an empire, the emergence of the sunnah al-nabawiyyah (the Tradition of
the Prophet) out of the compendiums of aḥâdîth with their complexities and
controversies, and the need for a reliable source for a governmental fiqh (jurisprudence)
these three reasons combined prepared the ground for the growth of the seed of a simple-
literary tafsîr, turning it into a huge tree of knowledge with hundreds of methodological
branches shadowing over all aspects of human life. By the end of the third century hijra,
tafsîr as a science and its applications in real life were so vast that any attempt to define it
would inevitably suffer from a more or less high degree of reductionism and
generalization. McAuliffe believes that “given the vast literature generated by centuries
of Muslim exegetical effort, no topical study within that genre can aspire to
comprehensive coverage.”83
This turns tafsîr to a flowing river of written and non-written
traditions around the Qur’ân where streams of inspirations, intuitions and emotions meet
some high levels of human intellectual endeavours over centuries, all of which have
combined to shape forms of meanings, all of those within different living cultures, and in
various socio-political contexts. These lively and complex characteristics of tafsîr are
well summarized in the concluding statement of McAuliffe’s article on the tasks of
interpretation. She writes:
82 Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 2:174. It seems that early and classical mufassirûn were not
interested in narrative aspects of the Qur’ân such as “the mood” of the narrator as an indicator of the
meaning. They keep silent about the relationship of the Qur’ân with the world outside and around it, such
as when a text can be understood differently in relation with its different contexts or when an idea/concept
has been borrowed or inherited from another source. These “modern” hermeneutical aspects of the text
seem to have been out of the question for early Muslim linguists for the simple reason that for them, the
Qur’ân was a timeless, space free and context free truth in the form of human language. McAuliffe explains
this lack of interest in “theories about cultural borrowing or extra-Islamic influence” among mufassirûn and
blame them by writing:
Qur’ânic passages that appear to echo versions of biblical narratives are not examined [by
mufassirûn] in order to discover their possible lines of transmission and the various
shapings undergone along the way. In fact, most of the questions that fuel the historical-
critical method of the Biblical scholar are, for his or her Qur’ânic counterpart, non-
questions or even blasphemies.
We’ll come back to this issue in further chapters. See McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 29-30.
83
Ibid., 37.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
53
Nevertheless, the inherent dynamism of exegetical activity leaves it ever
open-ended. Commentary begets commentary as each new generation of
readers receives the text within its own frame of reference –and as that
same community assimilates the multiple lines of interpretation that earlier
readings have generated. But those lines of interpretation are not simply a
series of parallel trajectories. There are instances of influence and points of
confluence. There are also disjunctions or disruptions and even, as just
mentioned, wholescale rejection of the accumulated consequences of
centuries of exegetical activity. Yet the conversation continues, the tug of
the text persists and the desire for intellectual engagement with the divine
word remains irresistible.84
Despite this ontological complexity, at the beginning of his elaborated tafsîr on the
Qur’ân, Ṭabâṭabâ’î presents a strong definition for tafsîr. He states: “Tafsîr is explaining
the meaning of the Qur’ânic âyahs, revealing their goals and clarifying their purposes.”85
By his short definition, he points to a horizon further than the apparent meaning of an
âyah. This goes beyond the philological-morphological-exegetical efforts of early
Mufassirûn, and somewhat enters the realm of ta’wîl.86
This definition points to a
common belief saying that the Qur’ân has a ẓâhir (outward), and several buṭûn
(inwards).87
In the research methodology used in the present thesis, this definition will be
used when working on and with tafâsîr, trying to reveal the goals of the concerned âyahs
behind their meanings presented by mufassirûn.
84 Jane D. McAuliffe, “The Task and the Traditions of Interpretation.” In The Cambridge Companion to
the Qur’ân, 202-203.
85
Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 1:4, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Sep. 4th
2011).
86
In fact, according to the Qur’ân itself, the purposes behind the Qur’ânic âyahs are exclusively in God’s
knowledge, given to whoever God desires. As mentioned before, a part of 3:7 reads: “… None knoweth its
explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from
our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.” Some interpreters have considered the “And” not to
be the beginning of a new sentence. By believing so, the “men of understanding” will be included in the
knowledge of the Qur’ân’s ta’wîl. See Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr on this âyah.
87
Paul L. Heck compares this ẓâhir and bâṭin of the Qur’ân to the gnostic and the apostolic
understandings of the New Testament in Christianity, and concludes that like early Christianity, early Islam
went through a “contestation over the very nature of true religion, contestation that centered on the extent
to which revealed material should be taken at face value, that is, exoterically (ẓâhir), or reformulated in
light of what the intellect saw as true, that is, esoterically (bâṭin).” To him, this multilayered characteristic
of the Qur’ân helped (or caused) the emergence of mystical schools within Islamic thought. See Paul L.
Heck, “Crisis of Knowledge in Islam (I): The Case of al-‘Amirî.” Philosophy East and West, vol. 56, No. 1
(Jan. 2006): 106-135 (p. 112).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
54
1.5 First Case Study: the Qur’ân Between Proper Noun and Concept
In his presentation at a conference honouring Wilfred Cantwell Smith, held at Harvard
University in 1979, William A. Graham says: “It is obvious that “al-Qur’ân” in the later,
fixed meaning of God’s Word, as written down in the maṣâḥif is necessarily a post-
‘Uthmânic or certainly a post-Muḥammadan, usage. Until the codification of what has
since served as the textus receptus -or at least until active revelation ceased with
Muḥammad’s death-there could have been no use of al- qur’ân to refer to the complete
body of “collected revelations in written form”.88
He mentions that this point has been
discussed and revealed before him by Buhl and Nöldeke.89
To support the argument that the term al-qur’ân has been chosen within time to
help Muslims form a collective identity around their sacred text, it is not insignificant to
mention a historical event recorded and reported by some early Muslim scholars.90
According to this report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr accomplishes the gathering of all
Qur’ânic verses in a manuscript, and he presents it to other companions of the Prophet
and asks them to find a name for it. Some suggest calling it “Evangel,” but others dislike
this name. Some suggest calling it “sifr” (the term used to refer to the five books of
Tôrah), but again it is refused by some others. Finally, the highly respected companion of
the Prophet, ‘Abdullâh ibn Mas‘ûd says that in his trip to Ethiopia, he has seen papers
between two covers, and people call it “Muṣḥaf.”91
He suggests calling it muṣḥaf and this
time everybody agrees. Ignoring the authenticity of this story, it matches very well with
the historical fact that when the third caliph sent manuscripts of the Qur’ân to far-distant
regions of the newly born Islamic Empire, they were commonly called ‘Uthmân’s
maṣâḥif (the muṣḥafs of ‘Uthmân).
Two more examples that support the hypothesis that the name al-Qur’ân is a later
nomination with an emphasis on the uniformity of the text and the sacredness of its
88 William A. Graham, “The Earliest Meaning of ‘Qur’ân’.” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Bd. 23/24
(1984): 361-77 (p. 362).
89
Ibid.
90
Suyûṭî narrates it from two different sources and Abu Shâmah (d. 665H) cites it from Mûsa b. ‘Aqaba
(d. 141H). See Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:184.
91
In Arabic, muṣḥaf means “scrolls or papers that have been put together.” This term is derived from the
Qur’ânic term ṣuḥuf (the plural form of ṣaḥifa) meaning “papers” or “scrolls.” The term ṣuḥuf appears eight
times in the Qur’ân, once to refer to the revelations to Abraham and Moses, once to refer to the revelations
to Moses, and six times to refer to some divine letters or books, such as in 20:133; 53:36; 74:52; 87:19.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
55
language can be found in Sijistânî and Suyûṭî’s works. Both these linguistics believe that
neither at the time of the Prophet, nor a few decades after his death, al-Qur’ân was a
common or popular name to refer to the revelations as an ensemble. Sijistânî narrates that
when the second caliph ‘Umar returned from Munâ to Madina, he gave a lecture to the
crowed that had come to welcome him, and during his lecture, ‘Umar used the term
muṣḥaf to refer to the Book of God.92
Jalâl al-Dîn al-Suyûṭî (849-911H) writes that when
Musallama b. Mukhallad al-Anṣârî (the governor of Egypt between 47H/667C.E. and
62H/681C.E.) asked his friends about two âyahs in the book, to refer to the Book of God
he used the term muṣḥaf. He concludes that knowing that the term muṣḥaf does not
appear in the Qur’ân, Egyptian people must have been familiar and comfortable with al-
Anṣârî’s usage of the term.93
The term qur’ân has been used 66 times in the Qur’ân.94
The mufassirûn’s efforts
to reveal the true meaning of any Qur’ânic term generally start by comparing that term to
all other appearances of the same term in the Qur’ân.95
Accepting this method,
surprisingly, one cannot find an exact and clear meaning for what the Qur’ân refers to
within the 64 afore-mentioned usages of the term al-qur’ân.96
In fact, there has been a
long and detailed debate among mufassirûn on the roots of this term, each root leading to
a different meaning. The main debate is if there is a hamza between the letters “râ’” and
“nûn.” Those who have believed that the term has a hamza in the middle, have concluded
that it is a term derived from the verb Qara’a (qâf, râ’ and hamza are the three root
letters), and those who have considered it to be without hamza in the middle, have
concluded that it is a proper noun not derived from any verb. The debate on the meaning
92 Abu Dâwûd al-Sijistânî, Nizhat al-Qulûb fi Gharîb al-Qur’ân. Cairo: no publisher, 1921, under
maṣâḥif.
93
Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 2:84.
94
Twice out of 66 times, the term qur’ân has been used to refer to “the prayer.” The other 64 times,
whatever the meaning is, it seems to be consistent. This term has also been used in one of its grammatical
derivative forms twice (75:17-18) to refer to “the recitation of the revelation.”
95
In her book, Qur’ânic Christians, McAuliffe writes about the possibility of accepting the Prophet
“Muḥammad (d. 9/632) as the Qur’ân’s first interpreter.” (McAuliffe, p. 13). She does not mention any
scholar’s name as to support this possibility. According to a unanimous consensus among mufassirûn, the
Qur’ân itself is its first interpreter. Also, she does not mention her source according to which the Prophet
Muḥammad died in the year 9 hijra, a year before the Prophet’s date of death (10H) on which all Muslim
and other Western scholars agree.
96
The term al-qur’ân has been repeated 50 times with the definite article al, and 16 times without it.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
56
goes beyond this grammatical split. Several possibilities have been presented by the
followers of both opinions, but discussions have not led to any consensus. For example
Badr al-Dîn al-Zarkashî (745-794H) cites from Abu Isḥâq al-Zadjjâj (241-311H) that al-
qur’ân has hamza in between, and derives from qara’a meaning “to gather” or “to rally,”
and the book is called al-qur’ân because it rallies and gathers together all the previous
revelations.97
Faḍl b. Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsî (468-548H) cites Laḥyânî (d. 215H) who believes
that the term is derived from qara’a but the verb means “to recite,” and the term means
“the recited.”98
To him, the term does not refer to a specific book but to anything recited.
Suyûṭî cites al-Shâfi’î (d. 204H) who believes that al-qur’ân is not derived from any verb
but is a proper noun that refers to a part or the ensemble of the revelations to the Prophet
Muḥammad as Tôrah is a proper noun referring to the similar revelations to Moses.99
Abu
Muḥammad al-Dârimî (181-255H) believes that this term simply means “invitation,” and
it refers to God’s invitation to humanity, so everybody is invited to come and enjoy
God’s mercy through revelations.100
He clearly does not see any link between this term
and the gathering of the revelations in between two covers.
If this lack of clarity can be complemented by the lack of Prophetic aḥâdîth
referring to the book by the name of al-Qur’ân, one might suggest that the actual
unanimous consensus on the name of the sacred text in Islam is a socio-political product
developed within the history of Islam helping the emergence of a new collective identity
around a living text.
Knowing the afore-mentioned uncertainty that any scholar will have to be aware
of when working with aḥâdîth,101
one will be surprised to see how little the name al-
97 Abu ‘Abdullâh Badr al-Dîn al-Zarkashî, Al-Burhân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 4 vol. Beirut: Dâr al-Ma‘rifa,
1990, available online at http://www.imanhearts.com/mobiles.php?action=show&id=2781 (consulted on
Oct. 10th
2011).
98
Abu ‘Ali faḍl b. Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsî, Majma‘ al-Bayân li ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân. 10 vol. Tehran: 1373 Solar
hijra.
99
Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:51.
100
Abu Muḥammad ‘Abdullâh b. Bahrâm al-Dârimî, Sunan al-Dârimî. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 2005,
available online at http://www.downloadquransoftware.com/download-sunan-ad-darimi (consulted on Oct.
11th
2011).
101
A very good example of what ignoring this uncertainty can do in scholarly works is found in Régis
Blachère’s introduction to his translation of the Qur’ân into French. He argues that during the Prophet’s
life, the Qur’ân was mostly preserved in memories of the Prophet and his companions, and those memories
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
57
Qur’ân appears in the Prophet Muḥammad’s authentic aḥâdîth. Instead the term kitâb
(book) or kitâb Allâh (the Book of God) has been used more frequently. This Qur’ânic
term has been used under its different forms hundreds of times in the Qur’ân. Here are
two Qur’ânic examples followed by an example from the aḥâdîth:
ة وو ب وأقم ٱلص ـو من ٱلكت ما أوحى إلي ن ٱلفحشاء وٱلمكر ٱت هىو ة ت وو ر إن ٱلص ولذ
أڪبر يعم ما تصعون ٱلل وٱلل
Recite [O Muḥammad] that which hath been inspired in thee of the
Scripture, and establish worship. Lo! worship preserveth from lewdness
and iniquity, but verily remembrance of Allah is more important. And
Allah knoweth what ye do. (29:45)
ي ب يتىو ـو ٱلڪت ي وڪرىو هم أولم يكفهم أنا أنزلا لرحمة إن ى تل
مون لقوم ي
Is it not enough for them that We have sent down unto thee the Scripture
which is read unto them? Lo! herein verily is mercy, and a reminder for
folk who believe. (29:51)102
The ḥadîth below is among rare aḥâdîth that have been accepted by both Sunnî and Shi’î
muḥâddithûn. It has been unanimously considered to be a kind of last will or last
statement of the Prophet. Its degree of authenticity in both Shi’â and Sunnî sources has
been evaluated as mutawâtir. According to this ḥadîth called Ḥadîth al-Thaqalayn:
Zuhayr ibn Harb and Shuja’ ibn Makhlad narrated to me from ‘Ulayyah
that he said: Zuhayr said: narrated to us Ismâ‘îl b. Ibrâhîm, from Abu
(including the Prophet’s memory) were subject to oblivion. To support his arguments, he narrates this
ḥadîth from Ṣaḥîḥ Bukhârî:
One day the Prophet was passing by a place where someone was reciting some âyahs of
the Qur’ân. The Prophet became excited and said: God bless him. Indeed, he reminded
me of that and that âyahs that I had forgotten in that and that sûrah.
We do not know if, before citing this ḥadîth, Blachère had checked its authenticity in any ‘ilm al-ḥadîth or
tafsîr sources, but if he had done so, he would certainly have become aware of the debate on the weak
authenticity of this ḥadîth among mufassirûn, a debate that he neither mentions, nor takes into account
when building his argument. See Régis Blachère, Le Coran: Traduction selon un essai de reclassement des
sourates, 3 vols. Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve, 1947- 51 (pp. 31-32). For more information on the critics of this
ḥadîth, see Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân (vol. 20 p. 329), available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Nov. 8th
2011).
102
In both âyahs, as well as in so many others, Pickthall translates the term kitâb by “scripture.”
Meanwhile Yusuf Ali, Shâkir, Dr. Ghâlî, and Muḥsin Khân unanimously translate it as “book.” Besides
online references that have been mentioned before, all these translations are also available online at
http://quran.com/29 (consulted on Nov. 12th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
58
Ḥayyân, from Yazid ibn Ḥayyân, who said: “I, Ḥusayn ibn Ṣabrah and
‘Umar ibn Muslim went to see Zayd ibn Arqam. When we sat down with
him, Ḥusayn said to him, “O Zayd, you have been greatly fortunate. You
have seen the Messenger of Allâh, upon whom be Allâh’s peace and
benedictions, heard his speech, fought with him in battles and have prayed
behind him. Indeed, O Zayd, you have been enormously fortunate. Narrate
to us what you have heard from the Messenger of Allâh, may Allâh’s
peace and benedictions be upon him.” Zayd said: “O brother, by God, I
have become aged and old and I have forgotten some of what I used to
remember from the Messenger of Allâh, upon whom be Allâh’s peace and
benedictions. So accept what I narrate to you and as to what I don’t,
trouble me not regarding it.” Then he said: “One day the Messenger of
Allâh, upon whom be Allâh’s peace and benedictions, addressed us near a
pond called Khumm between Makkah and Madinah. He praised God and
extolled Him and preached and reminded (us). Then he said, “Lo, O
people, I am only a human being and I am about to respond to the
messenger of my Lord [i.e. the call of death]. I am leaving behind two
precious things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of
Allâh. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the Book of Allâh and
adhere to it.” Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding the Book of
Allâh. Then he said, “And my ahl al-bayt (People of the House). I urge
you to remember God regarding my ahl al-bayt. I urge you to remember
God regarding my ahl al-Bayt. I urge you to remember God regarding my
ahl al-bayt.103
In this ḥadîth translated from Ṣaḥîḥ Muslim,104
as in all other versions in other sources,
the term kitâballâh (Book of Allâh) has been used. Although the revelations are in their
final stage, no mention of the Qur’ân can be found even in the conversations of ṣaḥâba
around the Prophet’s sayings.
One might say that the existence of the term kitâb in the Qur’ân and in the
Prophet’s speeches is a clear evidence for the fact that the concept of a divine book
composed from the revealed âyahs to the Prophet existed in his era. Such a conviction
103 Abu Ḥusayn Muslim al-Ḥajjâj, Al-Jâmi‘ al-Ṣaḥîḥ. 7 vols. Edited and expanded by Abu Zakariyyah
Yaḥyâ b. Sharaf al-Nûwî. Cairo: Dâr al-Khayr, 1996, ḥadîth 2408, available online at
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=53&ID (consulted on Sep. 8th
2011). To
read this ḥadîth in a Shi’î source, see Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Ṭûsî, Al-Tibyân. 10 vols. Edited by Aḥmad
Ḥabîb Qaṣîr al-‘Âmilî. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-Turâth al-‘Arabî, 1409H (vol. 1, p. 3), available online at
http://www.yasoob.net/books/htm1/m016/20/no2011.html (consulted on Sep. 8th
2011).
104
Abu Ḥusayn Muslim al-Ḥajjâj, Al-Jâmi‘ al-Ṣaḥîḥ. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Turâth al-‘Arabî, under Kitâb
Faḍâ’il al-Ṣaḥâbah. E-published by Maktabat al-Taqrîb, available online at
http://www.taghrib.org/library/book2.php?bi=820 (consulted on Sep. 8th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
59
can lead to assume that soon after the death of the Prophet, Muslims have renamed the
anthology of the revelations with a new name, al-Qur’ân. Madigan dedicates a whole
chapter of his book to the study of the Qur’ânic term kitâb. He meticulously does a
contextual analysis on this term trying to show how in early history of Islam, this term
was not referring to what today, we call al-Qur’ân. He concludes:
Based on these observations it appears that kitâb functions in the Qur’ân’s
discourse primarily as a symbol it is multivalent and able to operate on
several levels as the same time –something that has always frustrated those
who have sought to specify it. This multivalence will emerge with greater
clarity as we examine the interaction of the term kitâb with other terms,
but this much is already clear: it is the primary symbol of God’s
sovereignty and knowledge. The kitâb given to the Messenger, and
through him to people, is not (pace Pedersen) the record of God’s wisdom
and judgment, but rather the point where that timeless authority and
insight address the time-bound human condition. The umm al-kitâb ‘the
source (lit., mother) of the kitâb’ is not just some larger, primordial book
from which each of the scriptures derived; it is the very essence of God’s
universal knowledge and authoritative will. To have been given the kitâb
is to have been given some access to that divine realm where everything is
“written,” that is, known and determined. To say that a people has been
given the kitâb is not to say that the have been vouchsafed some great
work of reference that contains all they need to know and act upon; rather
it means that they have entered into a new mode of existence, where the
community lives in the assurance and expectation (or perhaps even the
fear) of being personally addresses by the divine authority and knowledge.
For all the attempts to specify it and reduce it to manageable proportions,
the Qur’ân’s kitâb still insists on seeing itself as the potent symbol and
authoritative locus of divine address to the world through the Arabian
prophet in the language of the Arabs.105
If al-Qur’ân as a proper noun for the ensemble of the revelations in between two covers
was not used in the early years of the formation of Islam, and the more popular term al-
kitâb did not refer to a physical book, scroll or script, how and when the concept of a
sacred book, as the central axis of Islamic theology, thoughts and rituals, as well as the
major allegiance of Muslims’ collective identity came into being? The traces of this quick
formation might be found in the history.
105 Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image, 76-77.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
60
1.6 Second Case Study: Muslim Disciples of Jesus
This Case study focuses on two âyahs on Jesus’ disciples. As its main goal, it aims to
reveal how different interpretations of the same âyahs, mostly coming from aḥâdîth have
not been limited to their scholarly debates between mufassirûn, but have contributed to
the formation of a certain self-definition for Muslims as well as a certain definition for
Christians — a definition that did not exist in the Prophet’s era but emerged a few
decades after his death and continues to distinguish Muslims from Christians to this
day.106
This study is composed of two main parts: in the first part two âyahs on Jesus and
two versions of their interpretations are carefully studied. To do so, two interpreters have
been chosen. The first one is Ṭabarî, and the second is Ibn Kathîr (700-774H). Right after
explaining the two versions of the selected âyahs’ tafâsîr, the different socio-political
contexts in which these versions were written is briefly presented. Then, a telegraphic
style chart is used to compare the two versions with each other. In the second part, in an
intertextual approach, the two terms al-naṣârâ (the common Qur’ânic term for
Christians) and muslimun (Muslims) are reviewed. At the end, the consequent
perspectives of the two versions on the definition of self-other among Muslims is
presented.
1.6.1 Part One: Two âyahs on the Disciples of Jesus
Much has been written about the representation of Jesus in the Qur’ân. Most of it, as one
might expect, has come either from Christian missionaries and theologians, who have
tried to show how and why Muslims are wrong about Jesus,107
or from Muslim
apologists, who have argued against Jesus’ divine nature and crucifixion, claiming that
the Qur’ân is the only trustworthy source of knowledge for studying the nature, the life,
106 For a recent detailed textual study on the disciples of Jesus in Sûrah Al-Mâ’îda, see chapter 11 of
Michel Cuypers, The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an. Edited by Rafael Luciani and
translated from French by Patricia Kelly. Miami: Convivium Press, 2009.
107
Here are two examples: “Christ in Islam” written by Rev. J. Robson (London: J. Murray, 1992), or
“Jesus in the Qur’ân” written by Geoffrey Parrinder. New York: Barnes & Noble Inc., 1965 and Oxford:
Oneworld Publications, 1995.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
61
and the death of Jesus.108
There are more than 70 âyahs in the Qur’ân directly or indirectly pointing to
Jesus. His birth, his life, his death, his resurrection, and even dialogues between God and
Jesus on the day of judgement have been narrated in the Qur’ân. Âyahs 3:52 and 5:11 are
selected to be studied by this essay. They both fall under McAuliffe’s second category of
“Qur’ânic Christians.”109
They have been selected for three reasons. First, Jesus is present
in both of them; in the first âyah his name is pronounced and in the second âyah his title
is used. Second, these two âyahs are the only two Qur’ânic cases in which the disciples of
Jesus call themselves Muslims. Third, the term al-naṣârâ, the common term for
Christians, is not used in either of them. The term al-naṣârâ is a problematic term and its
etymological problems are studied in the second part of this paper. As mentioned before,
Ṭabarî’s version and Ibn Kathîr’s version of their interpretations are studied. The âyahs
are as following:
م ٱلكفر قال من أنصارى إلى ٱلل يسىو م ا أحس م قال ٱلحواريون نحن أنصار ٱلل
وٱشهد بأنا مسمون ءاما بٱلل
But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be
my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah’s
helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear thou witness that we have
surrendered (unto Him). (3:52)
ن أن ءاموا بى و ـ ا مسمون وإ أوحيت إلى ٱلحواري ولى قالوا ءاما وٱشد بأن بر
And when I inspired the disciples, (saying): Believe in Me and in My
messenger, they said: We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered
(unto Thee). (5:111)110
108 Here are some examples: “Jesus in the Qur’ân” by Fazal A. Farouqi (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State
University/M.S.A., 1964), or “Jesus in the Qur’ân” by Sulaiman Shahid Mufassir (Plainfield, Ind: Muslim
Students Association of the United States & Canada, 1977). See also Chad Hillier, Contemporary Western
Representations of Jesus in Islam. MA thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University, 2001.
109
To McAuliffe, Christians may be found in the Qur’ân under two general categories: first, where the
Qur’ân refers to Christians as a “particular religious group” by the two terms of al-naṣârâ or ahl al-kitâb,
and second, wherever the Qur’ân speaks about Christian figures like Jesus and Mary. Her categorization is
explained in more details on page 73 of this chapter.
110
In 3:52, Pickthall translates annâ muslimûn as “we have surrendered,” and he gives the same
translation for bi annanâ muslimûn in 5:111. His translations have several weaknesses: first, he ignores the
accusative particle inna in 5:111. This particle is absent in 3:52. Second, in both cases, he avoids using the
plural noun muslimûn for the disciples, and translates it as if it is a verb. Third, he translates awḥaytu (I
revealed) as “I inspired.” I will discuss in this chapter how some mufassirûn, such as Ibn Kathîr. refuse the
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
62
Before moving into their interpretations, it is necessary to mention two points: First, as
McAuliffe explains it both Ṭabarî and Ibn Kathîr use the musalsal (chained) method in
their tafâsîr. According to this method:
Each [commentary] begins with the first sûrah of the Qur’ân and
comments verse by verse on that sûrah and all subsequent ones. ... Within
the sûrah each verse is quoted separately and then broken into exegetical
units, what medieval Biblical scholars would call lemmata. Each passage,
or lemma, is then analyzed separately and relevant comments are made
about the verse as a whole, such as its sabab al-nuzûl [occasion of
revelation].111
On the one hand, using this exegetical method might put the mufassir at the risks of
consciously ignoring the larger context and sacrificing the broader message of the âyah.
But on the other hand, reading and understanding Qur’ânic âyahs as pieces of a big
puzzle and segments of a larger text/message might increase the risk of the exploitation
of Qur’ânic âyahs for pre-arranged purposes. As an example, Mohammad Ali Zam, the
author of Jomhûr-e Jahâni-ye Shi’e (the global republic of shi’îs) sees Qur’ânic âyahs as
“units of composition” for a divine global message that directly or indirectly repeats itself
through each and every âyah of the Qur’ân: the Allâh’s order to establish a Universal
Islamic Republic of Shi’î Islam.112
To him, any âyah must be understood and interpreted
as a segment of this divine order. Since the length of this paper is strictly limited, and
because a contextual study on any Qur’ânic subject matter requires considerable
elaboration if it is to be valuable, this study accepts and respects the method preferred by
Ṭabarî and Ibn Kathîr. Therefore, other âyahs are mentioned only if they are included in
Ṭabarî’s or Ibn Kathîr’s tafâsîr on 3:52 and 5:111. Second: the pronominal identification
possibility of any divine revelation to Jesus’ disciples, and try to show how this conviction is rooted in their
anti-Christian socio-political context. Many translators do not hesitate to use the term muslim in their
translations of 3:52 and 5:111. For example in the case of 3:52, Yusuf Ali translates the ending part of the
âyah as “do thou bear witness that we are Muslims,” and Dr. Mohsin translates it as “bear witness that we
are Muslims.” In the case of 5:111, Yusuf Ali translates its ending part as “do thou bear witness that we
bow to Allâh as Muslims,” and Dr. Mohsin translates it as “bear witness that we are Muslims.” Here and
after, Dr. Mohsin’s and Yusuf Ali’s translations are available online at
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ (consulted on Sep. 10th
2011).
111
McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 34.
112
Mohammad Ali Zam, Jomhour-e Jahani-ye Shi’e: Kolliyât-e Mohandesi-ye Farhangi. Tehran: Ketab-e
Jomhour, 2006.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
63
has always been a major challenge in tafsîr. When it appears in a Qur’ânic âyah, the
pronoun hu in both its singular (hu, him/it) and plural (hum, they) forms causes many
debates among interpreters and translators of the Qur’ân. As an example, 4:159 speaks
about a day when all people of the book will believe in Jesus. It reads: “And there is none
of the people of the book, but will believe in him (Jesus) before his death ...” There is a
debate among mufassirûn on whose death this âyah refers to. Some early interpreters
affirm that this is an apocalyptic âyah speaking about the universal belief in Jesus before
“his death” (the death of Jesus) at the end of time. Others argue that this âyah speaks
about the death of the people of the book, so that when one of the people of the book
dies, at the moment of his/her death, an angel informs him/her about the trueness of
Jesus, but it is too late for him/her to inform others. Again, since the length of this paper
is limited, this problem has been taken into consideration only when one of the two
selected mufassirûn mentions it. Both selected âyahs are among the least problematic
âyahs in terms of pronominal identification, as only one of them uses the pronoun hum,
and then only once.
1.6.1.1 Ṭabarî’s Version
Ṭabarî is a famous Iranian interpreter of the 10th
century C.E. He has been considered by
the vast majority of traditional Muslim scholars to be the most influential interpreter in
the history of tafsîr. Ṭabarî is such an icon in tafsîr that the modern scholarship of Islam
divides the history of tafsîr into two major periods: Pre-Ṭabarî and Post-Ṭabarî.
McAuliffe uses this classification in her work.113
One of the very important
characteristics of Ṭabarî’s approach is that he groups the early interpretations of âyahs
and collects different ideas from the time of the Prophet to his own era, even if some of
them are controversial to others. His book of interpretation has always been a reliable
source of Qur’ânic knowledge for Muslims throughout the centuries.
In his very long tafsîr on 3:52, Ṭabarî begins with a definition for the verb ahassa
(he felt). He mentions other âyahs (19:98; 3:152) where this verb is used to mean “to find
113 Madigan uses Ṭabarî’s tafsîr frequently. He focuses on the term al-kitâb in different âyahs, and in a
careful intertextual study, tries to reveal what al-kitâb means to the Qur’ân. Without any classification, he
studies Ṭabarî’s tafsîr among “existing interpretations.”
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
64
out.” Ṭabarî concludes:
So the first sentence means when Jesus found out that Banî-Îsrâ’îl [Sons of
Isrâ’îl or Jews], to whom he was sent, do all efforts against his prophecy,
and they deny him, and they take all means to prevent his mission, then he
said: “who are my helpers to Allâh” meaning who are my assistants to
(face with) those who are denying His Sign, and those who are turning
their faces from His din [religion, faith, justice], and those who are doing
all efforts against His Messenger.”114
Ṭabarî immediately explains that here “to Allâh” means “with Allâh.” Hereby he argues
in an indirect way that Allâh is Jesus’ first helper. To prove his conviction about “to”
meaning “with,” he cites jâhili expressions where “to” has been used to say “with.” He
adds two aḥâdîth, one going back to Saddi, and the other one going back to Ibn Jurayh;
according to both, “to” means “with” in the context of this âyah. To Ṭabarî, it is clear that
the pronoun hum (them) in this âyah refers to Jews. He does not mention any debate on
this issue. To him, there are two important questions to be asked about this âyah. First,
why did Jesus ask for help? Again there is an indirect reference in Ṭabarî’s question. It is
as though Ṭabarî asks: was not Allâh enough for Jesus to accomplish his mission?
Second, to whom did Jesus ask this question? Was it a question addressed to a broad
audience (his own people, Banî-Isrâ’îl) or to a few specific people (only the disciples)?
Ṭabarî reports a debate among mufassirûn (he calls them people of the
knowledge) concerning the reason Jesus asked this question and to whom he addressed it.
He divides them into two major groups. The first group believes in a very long story
initially narrated by Saddi. According to this long story, as soon as Allâh gives Jesus the
mission and asks him to call people to the straight path, Banî-Isrâ’îl deny Jesus and exile
him from his native land. Jesus starts traveling with his mother from city to city. In each
city Jesus stops at someone’s home and performs miracles. Yet performing miracles is
not his purpose for traveling; rather, he is looking for his disciples. So, after performing a
series of miracles such as turning water to food and to wine, bringing dead people back to
life, and bringing a cow and sheep back to life after their meat had been eaten by people,
he arrives at a port where he meets two fishermen and at this moment he asks: “Who are
114 Al-Ṭabarî, Jami’ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 3:52, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Sep. 8th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
65
my helpers to Allâh?” They answer: “We are the helpers of Allâh. We believe in Allâh,
and bear witness that we are Muslims.” To Saddi, as well as to interpreters who have
followed Saddi, this is a code between Jesus and those who must continue his universal
mission. So, the question is specifically addressed to the disciples who must work “with”
Allâh as Jesus himself has worked with him. This version corresponds to 5:111 in which
disciples receive revelations independently of Jesus.
The second group, as Ṭabarî mentions, are the followers of Ḥasan al-Baṣrî (21-
110H) and Mujâhid b. Jabr (21-104H), two ruwât (narrators of ḥadîth) who unanimously
believe that Jesus asks this question of his own people, Banî-Îsrâ’îl because he finds out
that they are about to kill him. In their version, the disciples (Ḥasan and Mujâhid don’t
mention how many they are) answer Jesus’ call for help and ẓahara ‘alayhim (stand up
against Jews), and do not let their fellow citizens kill Jesus. So Jesus leaves the city. In
this version it is not clear whether Jesus runs away or if the Jews exile him. Also, there is
no mention of any miracles. Moreover, this version keeps silence about the disciples and
does not clarify whether they stay in the city or follow Jesus.
Although Ṭabarî asks the two afore-mentioned questions, he himself does not
state his preference between the two answers. After citing Mujâhid’s version, he
immediately moves to a definition for al-ḥawâriyûn (the disciples). He gives four
possible definitions for this term. The first is the definition that goes back to Sa’id b.
Jubayr. According to Ibn Jubayr, this name comes from the color of the disciples’ clothes
and means “men in white.” The second is the interpretation that goes back to Abi Arta‘a,
who believes that this name comes from the profession of the disciples. They were
laundry men, so they used to wash people’s clothes and whiten them. The third possible
definition for this term is presented by Qutâda b. Du‘âma (61-118H) and Ḍaḥḥâk b.
Muzâḥim al-Hilâlî (d. 100H). They define al-ḥawâriyûn as “chosen men,” “those who
deserve to succeed,” or “close friends of messengers.” For this last meaning Ṭabarî cites a
ḥadîth from the Prophet saying: “Every prophet had a ḥawârî and my ḥawârî is
Zubayr.”115
Ṭabarî concludes:
Probably all these meanings are correct. So, ḥawâri probably has come
from the color of the clothes or the profession of one or a few of Jesus’
115 Ibid.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
66
disciples. Then it has been used for all of them. Then throughout the years,
since they were always accompanying Jesus, people kept using this name
to address Jesus’ close assistants (the 12 companions). Finally it has been
taken as a name for whoever is close to a prophet.116
He ends his tafsîr on 3:52 by interpreting the term muslim used by the disciples. He says:
Allâh is informing us by this âyah that Islam is Allâh’s dîn. This is what
Jesus and all other prophets were missionaries for. They were missionaries
neither for Christianity, nor for Judaism. By this âyah Allâh is exonerating
Jesus from those who deviated from his path and established Christianity.
This is Allâh’s iḥtijâj (reasoning) to Najrân’s delegation through his
Prophet Muḥammad.117
At the end of his commentary on 3:52 Ṭabarî cites a ḥadîth from Muḥammad b. Ja‘far b.
Zubayr saying that the ending part of this âyah is an answer to the delegation of Najrân
when they argued and discussed with the Prophet about Islam being a new faith.
Ṭabarî’s tafsîr on 5:111 is very short. Here Ṭabarî affirms that this âyah is a
conversation between Allâh and Jesus. So when the beginning of the âyah says: wa idh
(“and behold”, or “and remember”), Allâh is speaking to Jesus. Then Ṭabarî interprets
awḥaytu (“I revealed”) as I “launched in their hearts.” Although every time this verb is
used for a prophet in the Qur’ân all interpreters (Ṭabarî among them) unanimously
interpret it as “to reveal,” or “the act of revelation,” here Ṭabarî mentions two
possibilities: first, his own preference, “to launch in the disciples’ hearts,” going back to
Saddi as the first narrator, and second, “to inspire.” Ṭabarî cites neither a Qur’ânic
instance nor a ḥadîth to support this second interpretation. He simply states: “some have
said that here this verb means to inspire.”118
He concludes: “The âyah means: ‘Remember
also O Jesus, when I launched in the hearts of the disciples: Confirm Me and My
Messenger Jesus.’”119
Then he moves to the second sentence of the âyah and briefly
states:
Since we have discussed before the roots and the definition of ḥawâriyûn,
we do not repeat it here. When the disciples said we believe, they meant
116 Ibid.
117
Ibid.
118
Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 5:111, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Sep. 9th
2011).
119
Ibid.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
67
“O our Lord, we confirm what You have ordered us to believe in. And
bear witness that we are humble before You to the extent of abjection, we
are good listeners, and we are obedient to Your Orders.120
Unlike the previous âyah, here Ṭabarî interprets muslim as a concept, and does not offer
any explanation about this pre-Christian Islam.
1.6.1.2 Ibn Kathîr’s Version
Ibn Kathîr is one of the most respected mufassirûn of the fourteenth century C.E. His
tafsîr is considered to be a summary of Ṭabarî’s tafsîr. Over the centuries, Ibn Kathîr’s
tafsîr has always been highly respected among Sunnî Muslims, who form approximately
eighty percent of the global Muslim community today.
Ibn Kathîr’s interpretation on 3:52 is short and clear, and is written with an
authoritative style and tone. He says: “When Jesus felt that they are determined to keep
their disbelief, and they insist on their aberration, he said: who are my helpers to
Allâh.”121
Ibn Kathîr briefly mentions two possibilities for “to” and states: “Mujâhid
says: ‘who follows me towards Allâh.’ Sufyân Surî and some others have said: ‘who
follows me with Allâh,’ but Mujâhid’s idea is closer to the truth.”122
Then he adds:
It seems that here Jesus meant to ask who his helpers are to invite people
to Allâh. So much like what the Prophet Muḥammad used to say every
year at the beginning of the pilgrimage before his migration.123
Almost half of Ibn Kathîr’s short tafsîr on 3:52 is dedicated to two aḥâdîth from the
Prophet, followed by Ibn Kathîr’s explanations about the history of Islam. He does not
mention any isnâd or source for these aḥâdîth. He concludes:
So, Jesus the son of Mary peace be upon him had a story similar to the
Prophet Muḥammad’s story. A group of Banî-Isrâ’îl repented and believed
in him, then they assisted and helped him, and they followed the light
which was sent with him, and that’s what Allâh informs us about by this
120 Ibid.
121
Ibn Kathîr. Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr, under 3:52, available online at http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-
8.html (consulted on Sep. 10th
2011).
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
68
âyah.124
Without paying any attention to the term muslimûn at the end of the âyah, Ibn Kathîr
moves into the meaning of ḥawâriyûn, and says:
It has been said that ḥawâriyûn were laundry men, it also has been said
that they are called ḥawâriyûn because of the color of their clothes, but the
correct sense is that ḥawârî means helper, as it has been used by the
Prophet Muḥammad, and recorded in Ṣaḥîḥayn.125
Again he does not mention any reference to support this conviction. A final point about
Ibn Kathîr’s short tafsîr on 3:52 is that although the âyah is about Jesus, one might be
surprised to see Ibn Kathîr’s total silence about Jesus.
His tafsîr on 5:111 is even shorter than the one on 3:52. Here Ibn Kathîr’s only
concern is to define the verb awḥaynâ (we revealed [to the disciples of Jesus]). He says:
“Allâh has graced Jesus by giving him some helpers. It has been said that waḥy
[revelation] here means ‘inspiration.’”126
He cites 28:7 (And We revealed to the mother
of Moses, saying: Suckle him ...) and says: “mufassirûn are unanimous that in 28:7 waḥy
means inspiration.”127
Then he cites 16:68 (And your Lord revealed to the bee ...) and
concludes:
The case of the disciples is like these above mentioned cases. Although al-
Ḥasan al-Baṣri has said that Allâh inspired them, and Saddi has said that
Allâh launched to their hearts, it is possible that here the âyah means Allâh
has revealed to Jesus, and Jesus has declared the revelations to his
disciples, so the disciples have received the revelations through Jesus.128
What is surprising about Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr on 5:111 is neither his silence about the term
muslimûn at the end of the âyah, nor his classification of the disciples and the mother of
Moses in the same category with bees, but it is his conviction when he says that all
mufassirûn are unanimous that in the case of the mother of Moses waḥy means ilhâm
(inspiration). A quick simple look at Ṭabarî’s tafsîr reveals the opposite. In his tafsîr on
124 Ibid.
125
Ibid.
126
Ibn Kathîr. Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr, under 5:111, available online at http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-
8.html (consulted on Sep. 10th
2011).
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
69
28:7 Ṭabarî never mentions ilhâm, but cites the idea of Saddi, who believes awḥaynâ here
means “to launch in the heart of Moses’ mother.” Although Ṭabarî prefers Saddi’s
interpretation, he also mentions the idea of Qutâda, according to whom awḥaynâ here
means “we revealed to” just as in the cases of all other prophets.
1.6.1.3 Ṭabarî, Ibn Kathîr, and Their Socio-political Contexts
As mentioned before, the higher critical theory believes that external elements have a
non-deniable impact on the forms and the meanings of every text. This study verifies the
socio-political contexts in which Ṭabarî and Ibn Kathîr have produced their works of
tafsîr. It also looks for the traces of some possible impacts of their social status and roles
in the power dynamic of their societies on their tafâsîr. A short glance at their
biographies might help to better analyse their different interpretations of the same âyahs,
as an example of the results of a higher critical approach.
Ṭabarî: Abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarîr al-Ṭabarî was born in 838 or 839C.E. in
the city of Amol in the province of Tabarestan, a mountainous region in the north of Iran.
Soon after his early education in Amol followed by some complementary studies in Rey,
he moved to Baghdad, the centre of culture and education during the ninth century. The
Islamic Empire was in its golden age under the Abbasid dynasty. Abbasid Caliphs were
known for their thirst for science and knowledge, and for their hunger to build glorious
buildings. A few years before Ṭabarî moved to Baghdad, al Ma’mun had founded Bayt
al-Ḥikmat where many Christians were collaborating with Muslims to translate works
from various languages, particularly Greek, into Arabic. Two and a half centuries before
the first Crusade, Baghdad was a multicultural city where Muslims, Christians, and
adherents of other faiths lived together in peace. The end of the ninth century is marked
by the efforts of Muslim thinkers and scientists living under Abbasid rule to transmit
Greek and Hindu knowledge to the Christian West, as well as the confrontation between
the rationalist Mu‘tazilîs and the traditionalist Ahl al-Ḥadîth.
Despite several harassments by zealous Ḥanbalîs, Ṭabarî stood for Mu’tazila and
established his own school of thought, law, and interpretation based on a rational
approach. Very soon he became an icon with “a degree of erudition shared by no one of
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
70
his era.”129
It has been calculated that he wrote an average of fourteen pages per day over
his entire life.130
Most importantly, numerous governmental and judicial positions,
honours, and rewards were offered to Ṭabarî, even though the Abbasid Caliph had
transferred to Samarra by the time Ṭabarî moved to Baghdad. Ṭabarî never accepted any
of those offers, rejecting all honours and rewards. His main sources of income were the
money he accepted for teaching as well as an inheritance from his father.
Ibn Kathîr: Abu al-Fidâ’ ‘Imâd al-Dîn Ismâ‘îl b. ‘Umar ibn Kathîr al-Qurashî al-
Busrâwî was born in 1300 or 1301C.E. in Busra, Syria under the Mamlûk dynasty in “the
most disruptive period in the Middle East since the Muslim conquests six centuries
earlier.”131
Although his teachers rank among the most respected and famous intellectuals
of his era, the influence of the great Ḥanbalî theologian Ibn Taymiyyah (661-728H), with
whom Ibn Kathîr studied for more than a decade, is undeniable. He married the daughter
of Jamâl al-Dîn al-Mizzî, the powerful director of Dâr al-Ḥadîth (the house of ḥadîth)
also known as al-Ashrafiyyah, the most prestigious madrasa of Damascus. Soon, Ibn
Kathîr’s reputation as a faqîh spread through the country, and he was offered various
positions. Unlike Ṭabarî, Ibn Kathîr welcomed those offers. In 1341C.E. Ibn Kathîr
obtained his first official appointment from the Mamlûk Sultan, al-Ashraf ’Ala al-Dîn
Qudjouk, as the member of the highest inquisitorial commission that had been formed to
study and determine certain questions of heresy. Ibn Kathîr obtained his first
governmental position in a chaotic period which is marked by conflicts between Muslims
and Christians. He started his official career fifty years after Sultan al-Manṣûr Sayf al-
Dîn Qalâwun declared jihâd against Christians. This jihâd had put an end to 200 years of
Crusade by wiping the last Christian independent state in the Holy Land off the map. In
1300C.E. Christians had tried to help Mongols invade Syria. Mongols and their helpers
had been defeated. Mongols had run away to their territories, but Syrian Christians had
continued to live under the Mamlûk dynasty. This is why Christians were considered a
potential threat in Ibn Kathîr’s era and were treated like traitors by Muslim authorities.
Ibn Kathîr always held prestigious governmental and judicial positions. Throughout the
years, he developed close connections with the Mamlûk sultans of his era and their
129 McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 40.
130
Ibid., 41.
131
Ibid., 71.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
71
Caliphs. While having a high position in the Great Mosque of Damascus, Ibn Kathîr
wrote his famous tafsîr on the Qur’ân. At the time of his death, he was the professor of
Qur’ânic tafsîr at al-Jâmi‘ al-Umawî, the most famous mosque after al-Ḥaramayn in the
Muslim world of his era.
1.6.1.4 A Telegraphical Style Comparison between Two tafâsîr
A basic comparative study between Ṭabarî’s tafsîr and Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr on 3:52 and
5:111 reveals interesting information. The following telegraphic style chart helps to see
how Ṭabarî’s version presents a welcoming pluralistic viewpoint on Christians, suitable
for Baghdad’s golden era of cohabitation and scientific dialogue between Muslims and
Christians, while Ibn Kathîr’s version draws a thick line between Muslims and Christians,
who were considered under the Mamlûk dynasty to be a threat to the Islamic Empire.
Ṭabarî’s version Ibn Kathîr’s version
1- Has a humble researching tone.
2- Gives detailed isnâd for different
meanings as well as for aḥâdîth.
3- Mentions all the narrators of an isnâd.
4- Whether does not decide or presents
decisions under “preference” category.
5- Mostly uses ḥadîth to support his
arguments.
6- Despite the fact that 3:52 clearly speaks
about the disciples, Jesus is the main
character of his tafsîr.
7- Gives detailed information about Jesus.
1-Has an authoritative preaching tone.
2- Mostly uses passive tense (i.e., it has
been said) for both meanings and
aḥâdîth.
3- Mentions only the first narrator, if
mentioned at all.
4- Often decides, three times under
“preference” category, and the rest under
“unequivocal” category.
5- Mostly uses other âyahs to support his
arguments.
6- Despite the fact that 3:52 clearly speaks
about the disciples, the Prophet
Muḥammad is the main character of the
tafsîr. Jesus is only named as the subject
of the first verb of 3:52.
7- Ignores Jesus.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
72
Uses the âyah to teach his readership
about Jesus’ story, his miracles, his
trueness, and the universalism of his
message.
8- Mentions Jesus’ name many times.
Never adds any adjective or title to his
name.
9- Does not use the popular Islamic praise
“peace be upon him” after the name of
Jesus.
10- Explains the etymology of ḥawâriyûn,
then argues how the meaning might
have been developed within time (from
the nomination upon the color of
disciples’ clothes to helper)
11- Does not deny the possibility of a
revelation to the disciples of Jesus, but
prefers “to launch in their hearts” rather
than “to reveal.”
12- The tafsîr on 3:52 affirms that
muslimûn is a designation for whoever
believes in Islam. But Islam is not a new
faith. It has always been Allâh’s din
revealed to all prophets. So the disciples
were Muslims as the followers of the
Prophet Muḥammad are.
13- The tafsîr on 5:111 interprets the term
muslimûn as a generic concept meaning
“being humble, good listener, and
8- Mentions Jesus’ name only once.
Mentions it as “Jesus the son of Mary”
to emphasize the denial of Jesus being
the son of God.
9-Uses the Islamic praise “peace be upon
him” after the name of Jesus. This praise
is popularly used after the name of a
prophet.
10- Briefly cites two etymological
possibilities, but affirms that the only
true meaning is what has been used in
the Prophet’s speech: ḥawârî is a
prophet’s helper.
11- Denies any revelation to the disciples
of Jesus. To support this conviction he
even gives false information about the
Ṭabarî’s tafsîr of 28:7
12- The tafsîr on 3:52 ignores the term
muslimûn at the end of the âyah.
13- The tafsîr on 5:111 totally ignores the
term muslimûn at the end of the âyah.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
73
obedient.”
14- The tafsîr on 3:52 is 115 lines. 109
lines are on Jesus and his stories. The
last six lines are about the author’s
inclusivist Islamic worldview.
15- Promotes a pluralistic viewpoint in
which whoever is “humble, good
listener, and obedient” is a Muslim.
16- The long length of the text, the high
level rhetorical style, as well as the
multitude chains of isnâd, make the text
confusing and difficult-to-understand
for ordinary Muslims.
14- The tafsîr on 3:52 is only eleven lines.
Five of them are about the Prophet
Muḥammad and the history of Islam.
15- Supports a binary, black and white
viewpoint in which Muslim is opposed
to Christian.
16- The text’s concision and clarity,
combined with the author’s preaching
and easy-to-understand tone, makes it
interesting for ordinary Muslims.
1.6.2 Part Two: Does Christian, as an Identity, Exist in the Qur’ân?
Both Ṭabarî and Ibn Kathîr, in their tafâsîr on 3:52 and 5:111, use the term “Christian” in
the same general sense that we understand it today: a proper nomination/noun for all
those adherents who, despite their diversity of dogma and rituals, share the same religious
identity coming from their faith in Jesus Christ and his divine nature. However, the
question is if this usage of the term has its roots in the Qur’ân. In other words, does this
identity exist in the Qur’ân? Another way of asking this question would be: what terms in
the Qur’ân refer to Christians (in the actual popular sense of the term)? McAuliffe states
that Christians may be found in the Qur’ân under two general categories: First, when the
Qur’ân refers to Christians as a “particular religious group” by using one of the two terms
of al-naṣârâ or ahl al-kitâb, and second, wherever the Qur’ân speaks about Christian
figures like Jesus and his mother Mary. To McAuliffe, “Most obvious [designation for
Christians] is, of course, the Arabic noun al-naṣârâ, the common Qur’ânic term for
Christians.”132
At the end of her book, she adds a third category, calling it “Christians as
pre-Qur’ânic Muslims.”133
McAuliffe does not consider this third designation of
132 Ibid., 3.
133
Ibid., 240.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
74
Christians, presented as muslimûn in 28:52-55, to refer to what al-naṣârâ or ahl al-kitâb
are referring to. She cites many detailed interpretations of 28:52-53, and studies the
possibility of this term being a reference to an elite group or to some individuals with a
Christian background who had left ahl al-kitâb around the ruler (king) of Aksum Ashama
b. Abjar al-Najâshî (d. 10H), waiting for the last prophet to come.134
Meanwhile Madigan’s work is narrowly focused on the term al-kitâb and/or kitâb.
In order to give a better sense of what “the book” means to “The Book” itself, Madigan
carefully studies different uses of this term in its different compositions including ahl al-
kitâb. At the end of his book he studies the composition of “people of the book” as a
special case. Unlike McAuliffe, to Madigan this term does not refer to all Christians (or
Jews) in the Prophet’s era, but to a specific group of Syriac and/or Egyptian ascetics for
whom literacy was highly prized and the written scripture was of primary importance. He
states:
Both the Syriac and the Egyptian ascetical traditions encircled and
penetrated the environment in which Islam grew up. In the life of the kind
of Christian ascetic with whom the Arabs would have had the most
contact, the ktâbâ was the most prized possession…it was indisputably
divine, authoritative, immutable. It was memorized and recited in worship,
internalized until the monk’s own speech was almost indistinguishable
from it –yet it is rarely seen. [He concludes:] Does this not sound rather
like what the Qur’ân seems to have in mind when it speaks of the kitâb? In
the thought world of the Prophet and his contemporaries, the monks would
be nothing if not people of the kitâb.135
134 McAuliffe consecrates about twenty pages of her book to this issue (pp. 240-59). However, it is not
insignificant to mention that, in the whole Sûrah al-Qaṣaṣ (chapter 28), there is not a single mention of
Christians. Instead the chapter starts with detailed narratives about Moses, continues with lamentations on
Jews, and ends with the story of Qârûn (a rich man from the tribe of Moses). Theological issues and
invitations to “the truth” are presented in between these sections. The fact that some mufassirûn include the
Gospel when interpreting 28:52-5 is the consequence of their exclusivist viewpoint when interpreting the
term muslimîn in 28:52. To them, this âyah proves that, in the history of humanity, there has only been two
categories: Muslims (in its exclusivist sense meaning those who have accepted the messengerhood of the
Prophet Muḥammad) and non-Muslims (those who have refused the messengerhood of the Prophet
Muḥammad). As for the people of the book, according to this interpretation, all were supposed to be
Muslims by accepting the foretellings about the advent of the Prophet Muḥammad in their sacred books,
but only a few of them “were not blind to the truth,” and submitted themselves to the will of God, by
accepting Muḥammad as the seal of His prophets.
135
Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image, 209.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
75
These scholars’ answers to the question of Christian being recognized as an identity in
the Qur’ân is closer to Ibn Kathîr’s interpretations of 3:52 and 5:111 than to Ṭabarî’s
inclusivist way of interpreting muslimûn at the end of those âyahs. Although what both
McAuliffe and Madigan find in tafâsîr are accurate, it seems that the Qur’ân itself does
not make a clear distinction between ahl al-kitâb, al-naṣârâ and muslim. The Qur’ân does
not mention the name of any ideology, faith or, what we call today, religion except Islam
(if it means at all what we understand from it today). Terms such as Christianity, Judaism
or Zoroastrianism are never used in the Qur’ân. So it will be surprising if their adjectives
are used. When studying and/or interpreting the nomination of al-naṣârâ in the Qur’ân,
neither mufassirûn, nor westerner scholars of Islam give any importance to the fact that in
all its 15 Qur’ânic usages, the term al-naṣârâ (under three different forms), always
appear in juxtaposition with another nomination al-yahûd (under three different
forms).136
For the meaning of al-naṣârâ, Ṭabarî offers three possibilities: first, this
lexeme comes from nasara (to help or to offer assistance), and the first followers of Jesus
were called so, because at the beginning of their formation as a group of believers out of
their Jewish context, they were faithfully helping each other and giving mutual assistance
to each other, so people called them helpers (naṣârâ coming from naṣîr); second, it
comes from the name of Jesus’ homeland being Nâṣirah (Nazareth), and him being called
al-naṣîrî (of Nazareth), and third, it comes from an important public call of Jesus reported
in the Qur’ân in 3:52 and 61:14, where he calls for anṣâr ilâ Allâh (helpers to God), and
his disciples answer positively. Most post-Ṭabarî mufassirûn follow him in their
interpretation of the concerned âyahs, and give details about possible meanings of the
term al-naṣârâ. Surprisingly, no mufassir bothers to do the same level of effort to discuss
136 The âyahs in question are: 2:62,111,113 (repeated twice), 120, 135, 140; 3:67; 5:14, 18, 51, 69, 82;
9:30; and 22:17. With no exception and in all fifteen cases, one of the terms naṣârâ, al-naṣârâ or
naṣrâniyan is in the same âyah with one of the terms al-yahûd, hûda, hâdû or yahudiyan (all referring to
Jews). McAuliffe studies the term al-naṣârâ independently from the term al-yahûd. At the beginning of her
book’s third chapter consecrated to the “Qur’ânic commendation of Christians”, she briefly mentions that
in some Qur’ânic instances, Christians are complimented “in a cluster, yoked with others in a common nod
of approval.” Then she moves to the three possibilities presented by some mufassirûn for the meaning of
al-naṣârâ. In her book, beside this brief explanation, there is no other mention of al-yahûd, as a Qur’ânic
term always attached to al-naṣârâ. The conclusion of the third chapter clearly shows that, in her careful
intertextual approach, she is not interested in studying al-naṣârâ in the textual context of its conjunction
with other terms, such as al-yahûd and related terms.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
76
etymological possibilities for the meaning(s) of the term al-yahûd.137
But why the
etymology of al-yahûd is important for the understanding of al-naṣârâ? Because it might
reflect the same “logic of nomination” used by the Qur’ân. In his tafsîr on 2:62, Ṭabarî
presents two jâhilî poems to discuss the singular and the dual forms of naṣârâ. Then he
presents a third poem in which the term has been used to refer to al-naṣârâ as helpers. He
takes it as a support for the possibility that the logic of the nomination must be found in
the mutual helps among first Christians. He does not see the possibility of any poetical or
rhetorical technic behind the poet’s choice of the words (like Hunter as a family name
and hunter as an adjective in English).
Both Ṭabarî and Ibn Kathîr briefly mention that Jews are called al-yahûd after
Moses’s prayer and repentance in public narrated in 7:156.138
So the logic of the
nomination in both cases comes from an important public event reported in the Qur’ân,
one in Moses’s life and the other one in Jesus’ life. They both keep silence about the fact
that these terms are not Qur’ânic innovations and their etymologies must be looked for
somewhere else. They are not interested in what Hebrew scholars might have to say.
They do not mention the Hebrew translation of the verb hâda (to repent or to return), and
ignore the fact that Moses was not praying in Arabic, so an Arabic verb in his speech can
become the name for his followers.
Ṭabâṭabâ’î, in his tafsîr on the same âyah, adds another possibility for the
etymology of al-yahûd. He writes: “In a riwâyah, it has been said that Jews are called al-
yahûd because they are descendants of Judah (Yehûdâ in Arabic) the son of Jacob.”139
Although it is far from his meticulous style, he does not give any more details about this
riwâyah and/or its transmitters. However, this possibility reflects the popular opinion
about the etymology of the term in some Western sources. According to some scholars,
the Hebrew term yhudi is the term originally used to refer to a member of the tribe of
Judah, the fourth son of Jacob or “a Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah.”140
This means that
137 McAuliffe calls Ṭabarî’s “etymological analysis of those who are Jews” perfunctory. See McAuliffe,
Qur’ânic Christians, 94.
138
The term used in 7:156 is hudnâ ilayka meaning “we repented to you” or “we returned to you.”
139
Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 7:156, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Sep. 6th
2011).
140
Oxford English Dictionary, under Jew, available online at http://www.oed.com (consulted on Nov. 10th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
77
the logic of the nomination is whether in a genealogy or in an attachment to a
geographical aspect of adherents’ life. This latter logic corresponds to what is believed to
be the etymology of the term Notzrim (Christians) in Hebrew. As reported in the New
Testament, at the early ages of Christianity, in a court against Paul, a Jewish lawyer
named Tertullus points to him by the term “a member of the Nazarene sect” (Acts 24:6).
Many scholars refer to this event as one of the first appearances of the term Notzrim141
By far, one of the best studies on the etymology of al-naṣârâ has been done by
François de Blois. In his article entitled Naṣrânî (Ναζωραȋος) and ḥanîf (ἐθνικός):
Studies on the Religious Vocabulary of Christianity and of Islam, de Blois looks for the
etymological roots of naṣârâ in various pre-Islam foreign languages such as Aramaic,
Malayalam, and Syriac. He mentions: “The possibility that the naṣârâ of the Quran were
not catholic Christians, but Nazoraean ‘Jewish Christians’, is suggested not only by their
Arabic name, but also by what the Quran has to say about Christians.”142
At the end of
his meticulous study he concludes:
My proposal now is that the ‘Jewish Christians’ in the environment of
primitive Islam were not those whom the Quran calls ṣâbi’ûn, but those
that it calls naṣârâ, … [I attempt] to show that the quranic polemics
precisely against the Nazoraeans make use of motives that can be traced to
the Pauline epistles, specifically the notion that Abraham had been elected
‘in uncircumcision’ and that he is consequently the paradigm of salvation
for the gentiles. The realization that the naṣârâ of the Quran are not simply
Christians, but ‘Jewish Christians’, who maintained, against Paul, the
continued validity of the law of Moses, explains why the quranic notion of
Abraham the ḥanîf, the gentile, stands in polemical juxtaposition not only
to the Jews, but also to the Nazoraeans. This suggests that the primitive
Muslim community had contact with Nazoraeans.143
Although in de Blois’ research, the emphasis is on the specificity of that group of heretic
Jews that the term naṣârâ refers to, he clearly accepts the logic of nomination being of
geographical nature. Keeping that in mind, there is no doubt that both al-yahûd and al-
141 For some detailed studies on this nomination, see Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, vol. 65, Issue 1, 2002, published by University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies.
142
François de Blois, “Naṣrânî (Ναζωραȋος) and ḥanîf (ἐθνικός): Studies on the Religious Vocabulary of
Christianity and of Islam.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,
vol. 65, No. 1 (2002): 1-30 (p. 13).
143
Ibid., 26.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
78
naṣârâ were already familiar terms for the inhabitants of the Najd Peninsula when these
latter first heard them within the Qur’ânic revelations. The question is if they were
understood by those inhabitants as references to the global community of Jews and
Christians or not. The Ṭabarî’s and Ibn Kathîr’s etymologies for al-naṣârâ support the
possibility of this term referring to all Christians of the world (and by deduction, al-
yahûd referring to all Jews) irrespective of their subdivisions and theological diversities
at that time. This also is very close to how these terms are used today by Muslims. But if,
as a way/culture of naming things, the initial logic of the nomination consisted of a
reference to geographical places where a community of that faith was living, then the
question will be: at a time when the expansion of Islam had not been started yet, how far
early Muslims’ mind could have gone when hearing those âyahs talking about al-yahûd
or al-naṣârâ?144
De Blois’ answer is that “one should seriously consider the possibility
that … there was a community of Nazoraean Christians in central Arabia, in the seventh
century, unnoticed by the outside world.”145
Combining the geographical reference as the logic of nomination for the term al-
naṣârâ with de Blois’ hypothesis about the region where before and around the seventh
century, that specific group of Christians were living, leads to another possibility:
according to the Qur’ân, the singular form of al-naṣârâ is al-naṣrânî.146
This singular
form is very close to al-najrânî (someone from the city of Najrân) or the inhabitant of
Najrân, the home city of the ascetic monks to whom Madigan refers. As a matter of fact,
Najrânis were the only Christians living in a community of faith close to Medina. They
were the first Christians who discussed theological issues with the Prophet Muḥammad,
and finally a treaty was signed between the two parties. So, as De Blois suggests naṣârâ
will be a reference to a specific group of Christians living in Central Arabia for centuries,
and the logic of nomination also remains faithful to its geographical nature.
144 The usage of this geographical reference as a logic of nomination used by early Muslims can also be
found in some other important instances: the same logic has been used to divide the Qur’ânic âyahs and
sûrahs into makkî (revealed in Mecca) and madanî (revealed in Medina). As another example, when
prescribing the rituals of Ḥajj, the Qur’ân makes a distinction between muḥillî ḥaram (those who live in the
Harem), and ghayra muḥilli ḥaram (those who do not live in the Harem).
145
De Blois, “Naṣrânî (Ναζωραȋος) and ḥanîf (ἐθνικός),” 16.
146
The singular form has been used once in the Qur’ân (3:67). It reads: “Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a
Christian [naṣrâniyyan]; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allâh), and he was not of the
idolaters.”
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
79
This is a raw suggestion, and it requires more in depth studies, but I briefly
mention two supports for my suggestion: first, among different rhetorical styles of the
Qur’ân, there is the technic of replacing a letter in a name by another phonetically similar
letter or to slightly deform it by adding one or two letters. This technic is called al-qalb
wa al-ibdâl (change and replacement).147
For example in 3:96, the city of Makkah
(Mecca) is called Bakkah,148
or in 37:1 the prophet Ilyâs (Elijah) is called Ilyâsîn.149
If al-
naṣrânî is the soft pronunciation of al-najrâni, then by the same logic that de Blois
believes that naṣârâ is a reference to Nazoraeans (and al-yahûd might mean people of
Judah), al-naṣârâ might be a reference to the people of Najrân. Second: there are other
Qur’ânic nominative terms such as ruhbân (5:82; 9:31, 34) or Qissîs (5:82), both
exclusively used in plural forms as references to Christians, and in some cases, after the
expansion of Islam, they are used in legal documents, to refer to Christians in a region
outside the Peninsula of Najd.150
1.6.3 Does Muslim, as an Identity, Exist in the Qur’ân?
In Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr on 3:52 and 5:111, al-naṣârâ, as a common designation for
Christians is presented as a via negativa for Muslims. This corresponds to the afore-
mentioned socio-political context of his era, but does it also correspond to the Qur’ânic
147 According to Ṣubḥî al-Ṣâliḥ, the famous gramarian ibn al-Sikkit (d. 244H) mentions 300 examples of
qalb wa ibdâl. For more information about this technique and to read some of its Qur’ânic examples, see
Ṣubḥî al-Ṣâliḥ, Dirâsât fi Fiqh al-Lugha. Beirut: Dâr al-‘Ilm li al-Malâ’în, 1980 (pp. 213-15).
148
There is a debate among mufassirûn on what exactly the term Bakkah refers to. Some, such as Ṭabarî,
suggest that it refers to “the place of crowding.” Some others, such as Suyûṭî, suggest that it is a dialectical
variant meaning Makkah. Other possibilities are also discussed. Kenneth Cragg suggests that Bakkah is the
name of the sacred valley in which the city of Mecca is located. See Kenneth Cragg, “The Historical
Geography of the Qur’ân: A Study in asbâb al-nuzûl.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 1, No. 1 (1999):
81-92 (p. 81).
149
Some other possibilities for ilyâsîn have been discussed by mufassirûn, but many of them, including
Ṭabarî, insist that ilyâsîn is simply a purposely deformed pronunciation of the name Ilyâs (Elijah).
150
As an example, in a letter from the Umayyad Caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azîz to his governor ‘Uday
ibn Arta‘ cited by Ṭabarî in his tafsîr on 2:190, the Caliph points to Christian inhabitants of the city by the
term al-ruhbân. The Caliph writes:
I have read an âyah in the Book of Allâh which says: ‘And fight in the Way of Allâh
those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the
transgressors.’ I believe that this âyah is ordering me not to fight those who do not initiate
to fight me, and by this I mean women, children, and ruhbân [Christians].
See Al-Ṭabarî, Jami’ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur'ân, under 2:190, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Dec. 8th
2011).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
80
usage of the term?
Checking the term muslim in early Arab dictionaries reveals an interesting point.
Al-Farâhidî (100-173H), the author of Kitâb al-‘Ayn, probably the earliest Arabic
dictionary ignores the term and does not mention it under salama (the roots of the term
muslim).151
He simply mentions that the islâm form of salama means submitting oneself
to the will of Allâh.152
Four centuries later, Ibn Manẓûr, the author of Lisân al-‘Arab cites
al-Azharî (the author of al-Tahdhib, an older dictionary) and affirms that the term muslim
has two meanings: first, someone who submits himself to the will of Allâh, and second,
someone who purifies his prayers only for Allâh.153
Two centuries later, Fakhr al-Dîn al-
Ṭurayḥî, the author of Mu‘jam Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn cites a Qur’ânic âyah (84:3) and says:
“Muslim means someone who accepts Allâh’s judgement, and follows Allâh’s orders,
and purifies his prayers for Allâh, as interpreters of the Qur’ân have said.”154
This quick look at some dictionaries help seeing the traces of a historical
evolution of the term muslim from a general concept to the designation of an identity set
over against infidels including Jews or Christians. A brief study of certain âyahs in which
the term muslim is used reveals that the Qur’ânic use of this term as a general concept
referring to whoever submits himself/herself to the will of God. In other words, the
Qur’ân uses the term muslim to define a relationship between human being and God
rather than an exclusive designation for the followers of the Prophet Muḥammad.
According to the Qur’ân:
151 Here and after in this thesis, some of the following seven major Arab classical dictionaries are used.
They are: Kitâb al-‘Ayn written by al-Farâhidî (100-173H), Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha written by al-Jawharî
(d.393H), Maqâyîs al-Lugha written by Ibn Fâris (d. 395H), Al-‘Ibâb al-Zâkhir written by al-Ṣaghânî (577-
650H), Lisân al-‘Arab written by Ibn Manẓûr (630-711H), Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ written by al-Fayrûzâbâdî
(729-818H), and Mu‘jam Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn written by al-Ṭurayḥî (d. 1085H). To read about the history
of these dictionaries and their importance as references in Qur’ânic Studies, see chapters 3 to 5 of John A.
Haywood, Arabic Lexicography: Its History, and Its Place in the General History of Lexicography. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill, 1965.
152
‘Abd al-Raḥmân Khalîl b. Aḥmad al-Farâhidî, Kitâb al-‘Ayn. 1st ed. Damascus: Manẓamat al-Awqâf
wa al-Umûr al-Khayriyyah, 1414H (p. 265).
153
Abu al-Faḍl Jamâl al-Dîn Muḥammad b. Mukram ibn Manḍur, Lisân al-‘Arab. Qum: Adab al-Ḥawza,
1363 Solar hijra, under salama, available online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp (consulted on Dec. 10th
2011).
154
Fakhr al-Dîn al-Ṭurayḥî, Mu‘jam Majma‘al-Baḥrayn. 2nd
ed. Tehran: Enteshârât-e Mortazavî, no date,
under salama, available online at http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=275365 (consulted on
June 19th
2012).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
81
Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac are Muslims: in 2:128 Abraham prays: “Our Lord!
Make us Muslims, and of our offspring a Muslim nation, and show us our rituals.” A few
âyahs further in 2:132 he addresses his two sons and informs them about his last will by
saying: “The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my
sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who
have surrendered (unto Him).”
Jacob and all his 12 sons are Muslims: in 2:132 Jacob also asks his sons, as his
last will, to “die not except as Muslims.”
Solomon is a Muslim and orders others to be Muslims: in 27:30-32 the Queen of
Sheba reads Solomon’s letter for her men. 27:30-32 reads: “Lo! it is from Solomon, and
lo! it is: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful; Exalt not yourselves against
me, but come unto me as those who surrender. She said: ‘O chieftains! Pronounce for me
in my case. I decide no case till ye are present with me.’”
Joseph is a Muslim: Joseph’s prayer when his parents, as well as his eleven
brothers fell down before him prostrate is narrated in 12:101: “[Joseph said:] O my Lord!
Thou hast given me (something) of sovereignty and hast taught me (something) of the
interpretation of events - Creator of the heavens and the earth! Thou art my Protecting
Friend in the world and the Hereafter. Make me to die submissive (unto Thee), and join
me to the righteous.”
Moses is a Muslim: he also commands his people to be Muslims. 10:84 reads:
“And Moses said: ‘O my people! If ye have believed in Allah then put trust in Him, if ye
have indeed surrendered (unto Him)!’”
The magicians who were invited to resist Moses become Muslims when they see
Moses’ miracles: 7:126 is a conversation between Pharaoh and the magicians after they
have fallen down prostrate to Moses’ God. Pharaoh angrily threatens them but they reply:
“Thou takest vengeance on us only forasmuch as we believed the tokens of our Lord
when they came unto us. Our Lord! Vouchsafe unto us steadfastness and make us die as
men who have surrendered (unto Thee).”
Even Pharaoh tries to be Muslim, but his Islam is perhaps not accepted: 10:90-91
is a short conversation between Pharaoh and an archangel (probably Gabriel) at the
moment of Pharaoh’s death in the Red Sea. The âyah says: “And We brought the
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
82
Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh with his hosts pursued them in rebellion
and transgression, till, when the (fate of) drowning overtook him, he exclaimed: ‘I
believe that there is no God save Him in Whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am
of those who surrender (unto Him)’. ‘What! Now! When hitherto thou hast rebelled and
been of the wrong-doers?’”
The disciples of Jesus are all Muslims: As mentioned before, the disciples present
themselves in 3:62 and 5:111 as Muslims.
All Prophets are Muslims: 2:136 teaches the followers of the Prophet Muḥammad
to say in their prayers: “Say (O Muslims): ‘We believe in Allah and that which is
revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and
Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the
prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and
unto Him we have surrendered.’”
Even some djinns are Muslims: 72:14-15 cite a conversation between some djinns
who, for the first time in their lives, have heard some revelations while the revelations
descended from above. At the end of the conversation they say to each other: “And there
are among us some who have surrendered (to Allah) and there are among us some who
are unjust. And whoso hath surrendered to Allah, such have taken the right path
purposefully. And as for those who are unjust, they are firewood for hell.”
Surprisingly the term muslim is so often used in direct citations in the Qur’ân. All
of the afore-mentioned âyahs are examples of this point. Moreover, the presence of
“muslim” placed in the mouths of these non-Arabic speaking individuals implies that
whatever language they were speaking, it would have had a concept equivalent to
muslim.
Having Mircea Eliade’s theory of sui generis in mind, one may suggest that to
early Muslims this term did not mean what it means to scholars today. Two arguments
support this hypothesis: first, the two Qur’ânic terms frequently used to refer to what we
call early Muslims are: al-anṣâr, helpers or those who lived in Yathrib and welcomed the
Prophet and his followers in their homes, and al-muhâjirûn, immigrants or those who
migrated to Yathrib from Mecca before the migration of the Prophet. They have been
admired by terms like Mujâhidûn (those who do jihâd) or sâbeqûn (those who accepted
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
83
the truth earlier). Today’s scholarly and popular use of the term “early Muslims” as a
reference to them is the result of a self-definition formed within the power dynamics of
the Islamic Empire and supported by Muslim authorities over centuries of conflict,
Crusade, Jihâd, and mutual misunderstanding. Second, the definition of the Qur’ânic
muslim, via negativa is not similar to what is popularly understood today. Using Ibn
Kathîr’s own preferred method to discover the meaning of the term in the Qur’ân reveals
to what extent his interpretation of the term has been shaped by the socio-political context
of his life.155
There are four âyahs in the Qur’ân in which the term muslim is defined by its
negative:
Muslim versus mushrik (who believes in partner(s) for Allâh)156
: In 3:67 muslim has
been used over against mushrik. The âyah reads: “Abraham was neither a yahûd man,
nor a naṣrânî man, rather was he a ḥanîf (monotheist), a muslim, and not of al-
mushrikun.”
Muslim versus mufsid (evil-doer, corrupter)157
: As mentioned before, 10:90-92
narrates a conversation between Pharaoh and an archangel. In 10:91 the archangel uses
mufsidûn as an opposite term for muslim.
Muslim versus mujrim (sinner, guilty person)158
: In 68:35 muslim has been clearly
used over against mujrim. This âyah speaks about people of hell, and justifies God’s
155 McAuliffe affirms that letting the Qur’ân interpret itself is highly recommended by Ibn Kathîr. She
states:
Thus, [to Ibn Kathîr] the first step is to let the Qur’ân interpret itself, to let one part of the
revelation clarify the obscurities of another part. If no such clarification can be found,
recourse may be had to the sunnah, the normative remembrance of Muḥammad’s words
and deeds, at least to that part of it which contains the exegetical remarks of the Prophet.
If such a search is greeted with prophetic silence, the next step –both hermeneutically and
historically– is reference to the companions of the Prophet.
See McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 17.
156
This is Ibn Manẓûr’s definition for mushrik. See Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under sharaka, available
online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp (consulted on June 19th
2012).
157
Ibid., under fasada.
158
This is Farâhidî’s definition for mujrimûn. See Al-Farâhidî, Kitâb al-‘Ayn, under jarama, available
online at http://archive.org/details/alaeen_Farahidi (consulted on June 19th
2012).
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
84
decision to punish mujrimûn by saying: “Shall We then treat the Muslims like the
mujrimûn?”159
Muslim versus qâsiṭ (unjust, rebellious to God’s commandments)160
: As
mentioned before in 72:14 djinns present themselves as two groups of muslimûn versus
qâsiṭûn.
These Qur’ânic affirmations support the hypothesis that the term muslim as a
designation for an identity over against Christian or Jew does not exist in the Qur’ân.
Rather it is a generic concept that starts with Abraham, and whoever adheres to
Abraham’s approach to God and worship is a Muslim. The 22nd
sûrah of the Qur’ân ends
with this âyahs:
هدوا ى ٱلل ـو ين من حر ح جهادهۦوج يكم ى ٱلد كم وما جع و ة أبيكم هو ٱجتب م
إبرتهيم يكم وتكونوا شداء ا ول شهيد ذا ليكون ٱلر ـو وى ه كم ٱلمسمين من قب و م ى هو
كم ٱلاس و هو مول تصموا بٱلل ة وٱ وو ة وءاتوا ٱلز وو عم ٱلمولىو ونعم ٱلصير أقيموا ٱلص
And (O humankind) strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right.
He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in din (religion, faith, justice)
any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He has named
you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture) that the messenger may be
a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So
establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your
Protecting friend. A blessed Patron and a blessed Helper! (22:78)
In the fifth chapter of his doctoral dissertation,161
Patrice Brodeur focuses on the history
of the comparative study of religion in Islam. He tries to analyze “what Islam is, or ought
to be, and what being a Muslim (in terms of an identity) means.”162
To do so, he studies
Abu Zahra’s Islamic definition of the term din, aiming to show the ambiguity of the term
within Islam. Then, he moves to a comparative analysis of three modern Egyptian
Muslims (Abu Zahra, ‘Abdallâh Dirâz, and Aḥmad Shalabî) who have all worked and
published on “religious others.”163
Brodeur’s main goal is to demonstrate how Dirâz’s
159
Ibn Manẓûr believes that mujrim means pagan. See Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under jarama, available
online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp (consulted on June 19th
2012).
160
Ibid., vol. 7, p. 378.
161
Patrice Brodeur, From an Islamic Heresiography to an Islamic History of Religions.
162
Ibid., 251.
163
All of them have put an emphasis on Christianity. In Abu Zahra’s case, his book entitled comparative
religions is composed of 108 pages on six religions (Judaism is totally ignored), and 194 pages on
Christianity.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
85
more-or-less pluralistic viewpoint, in which dîn is broadly defined as a spiritual
relationship between humankind and the transcendent, can coexist with Abu Zahra’s
more exclusivist viewpoint, in which the Qur’ân is the ultimate source of truth on all
subject matters (including other religions), and Shalabî’s extremist viewpoint, in which
the only dîn is Islam. Shalabî writes: “It is indisputable that just and unjust researcher will
soon hail Islam when he compares the Islamic thinking on the subject of ‘Allâh’, God,
with the Christian or Buddhist thinking on the same subject.”164
At the end, Brodeur
concludes that the Islamic literature on “religious others” has helped Muslims, over a
thousand years, to not only reach a relatively high degree of interreligious sensitivity
towards non-Muslims, especially people of the book, but also to improve their own self-
understanding.165
He concludes:
In the same way as it was useful then to define the boundaries of an
Islamic identity, so it is today, although from a very different power
position. Muslims are no more at the center of power in the way they were
when the formative generic system of ‘religious others’ developed in
central Islamic lands.166
This case study did not primarily aim to discover when, where, and how “Muslim” as a
self-identification for the followers of the Prophet Muḥammad first emerged. Instead, it
tried to open a line of discussion on the possibility of the contribution of the term al-
naṣârâ, interpreted and defined by mufassirûn as negativa for muslim, to the followers of
the Prophet Muḥammad’s self-identification by the term muslim. Its other goal was to
compare two different tafâsîr on two specific âyahs on the disciples of Jesus, as an
example for a historical reality that is often ignored by devout Muslims: the ambiguity of
some key Qur’ânic terms that are considered too often to be unequivocal. In addition, it
pointed to how the socio-political realities of an interpreter’s era might have influenced
his interpretations. In other words, certain words in the Qur’ân do not intrinsically hold
the meaning they have come to hold, and exegeses have always been at least partly linked
to historical context. Studies like this present dissertation are humble efforts to challenge
164 Quoted in English translation from Patrice Brodeur, From an Islamic Heresiography to an Islamic
History of Religions, 272.
165
This literature begins with the Qur’ânic âyahs on Jews or Christians and continues with its tafâsîr.
166
Patrice Brodeur, From an Islamic Heresiography to an Islamic History of Religions, 294.
CHAPTER 1. THE QUR’ÂN AND ITS HERMENEUTICS
86
the established understanding of basic terms like “Muslim” and “Christian,” trying to
open new possibilities for interreligious dialogue. Given that all knowledge and all
interpretation is linked to a specific time and culture, let me close by saying that, in
today’s world, it is not easy for Muslim scholars to oppose and change what has been
understood and fixed by a majority of Muslims over time as the only true meaning of the
Qur’ân. This one-true-meaning mentality is mostly based not only on the sacredness of
the Qur’ân, but also on the perceived sacredness of tafâsîr — a sacredness that prevents
Muslims from studying them as human products composed within their respective
historical, personal, socio-political, and cultural contexts.167
167 Another reality is that, sometimes, inclusivist tafâsîr such as Ṭabarî’s or Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s are not easy-to-
understand for ordinary Muslims. At times, selected paragraphs are highlighted as alleged confirmation for
other intepreters’ exclusivist tafâsîr, resulting in the manipulation of earlier authors’ initial intentions.
Chapter 2
On Themes, Topics, and Divisions in the Qur’ân
2.1 Introduction
As a book recited and read for more than fourteen centuries, the Qur’ân has been exposed
to a diverse readership. Consequently, its understanding has been exposed to countless
cultures and traditions. Since its appearance and down the centuries, its sûrahs, âyahs,
words, letters, and even accents have been the subjects of uncountable meticulous studies
and endless scholarly debates among Muslim erudite researchers, thinkers and scholars,
generation after generation. As a result, a wide variety of approaches and methods have
been developed within ‘ulûm al-qur’âniyyah (the Qur’ânic Sciences). This chapter begins
with a quick review of those various sciences. It continues with subdivisions of the
Qur’ân based on Qur’ânic themes and topics. It then studies the main approaches and
methods of tafsîr. Finally, it presents a new theory for achieving a different
understanding of the Qur’ânic messages being the theory of double messages of the
Qur’ân. This theory divides the Qur’ânic messages and meanings into two main
categories. The first category includes the time bound messages addressed to a varied
local audience living at the time of the Prophet. The second category contains the
timeless messages for all humanity beyond geographical boundaries. This theory is, to
some degree, a complementary reaction to Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s theory, which
affirms that:
... the Qur’ân as scripture has meant whatever it has meant to those
Muslims for whom it has been scripture. The real meaning of the Qur’ân is
not any one meaning but is a dynamic process of meanings, in variegated
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
88
and unending flow. The true meaning of scripture is the solid historical
reality of the continuum of actual meanings over the centuries to actual
people. It is as transcendent, and/or as mundane, as have been those actual
meanings in the lives and hearts of persons … the study of religion is the
study of persons. The meaning of the Qur’ân as scripture lies not in the
text, but in the minds and hearts of Muslims.1
While interpreting Cantwell Smith’s above theory, Madigan states:
[What Cantwell Smith says] is true in both an internal and an external
sense. First, the Qur’ân reflects the history of its own development over
the more than twenty years of its address to a varied audience. Second,
since the time of its canonisation it has been read by a very diverse
community of faith in widely different historical contexts.2
My own theory of double messages of the Qur’ân will therefore bring greater clarity to
the distinction between the two categories of meaning pointed out by Madigan above.
The final goal of this theory is to get closer to the experience of what I call “the fifth
layer of meaning” or “the soul of the text.” This fifth layer is the last of five layers that I
present as another theory within this chapter.
2.2 The Sciences of the Qur’ân
There is no need to explain why with the rapid expansion of Islam, and the quick
establishment of an empire from the Atlantic ocean to the Indus river in present day
Pakistan within less than a hundred years after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad (632
CE), early Muslims had to deal with the world of sciences among the many challenges of
becoming a new socio-political power. As Doris Behrens-Abouseif rightly mentioned,
Muslims first inherited and applied the “ancient Greek classifications of the sciences”
according to which the concept of being “religious” was considered in opposition to
being “secular.” Although this early Greek categorization was an imposition on a new
Islamic reality that was initially more “conceived as dunyâ wa dîn, that is, an all-
pervasive worldly and religious systems to deny a separation between the secular and the
1 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “The True Meaning of Scripture: An Empirical Historian’s Non-reductionist
Interpretation of the Qur’ân.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 11, No. 4 (July-Aug.
1980): 487-505 (pp. 504-5).
2 Daniel A. Madigan, “Themes and Topics.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ân, 79.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
89
religious aspects of life,”3 Muslim scholars soon followed the same duality in their
“Islamic” categorization of sciences. They made a distinction between ‘ulûm shar‘iyyah
(Islamic sciences), dealing directly or indirectly with religious matters, and non-Islamic
ones ‘ulûm ‘aqliyyah (rational and natural sciences), including philosophy.”4 As for the
study of the Qur’ân, it found its place at the center of what was came to be known as
“Islamic sciences,” gradually developing an ensemble of complementary sciences around
it. The ‘ulûm al-qur’âniyyah or ‘ulûm al-qur’ân (sciences of the Qur’ân) emerged in a
particular context of power where political and religious authority were combined, as
mirrored in the concept of the caliphate. Due to this dual nature of power, the distinction
between religious and non-religious matters in different aspects of life, including
“science,” never resulted in a clear separation between Islamic and non-Islamic.5 So, as
long as it was useful for the newborn Islamic empire, any mundane or profane/secular
matter was to a degree “Islamic” in the sense that political Islam was not indifferent
about it, considering it as a potential tool to better govern or to expand political power.6
For the same reason, Greek sciences such as medicine and astronomy were among the
subject matters popularly taught in madrasas since the beginning of the second hijra
century, and by the same logic, the sciences of the Qur’ân had a direct impact on the
development of flourishing rational and natural sciences.
3 Doris Behrens-Abouseif, “Beyond the Secular and the Sacred: Qur’ânic inscriptions in medieval Islamic
Art and Material Culture.” In Word of God, Art of Man: The Qur’ân and its Creative Expressions. Edited
by Fahmida Suleman, 41-9. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 (p. 41).
4 Ibid.
5 Behnrens-Abouseif gives the example of politics. She writes: “Muslim political thought distinguished
between siyâsa, meaning statecraft or politics, and dîn, or religion, a distinction that was conditioned;
however, by the imperative that siyâsa must not conflict with religion, but rather be in accordance with it.”
See ibid.
6 A very good example of this perplex standpoint is Mohammad Ali Zam’s viewpoint on Islamic sciences.
According to him, Islam did not come to establish Islamic versions of everything, but to mention few
proscriptions while prescribing freedom of thought and act. He gives the example of “Islamic economics,”
and says that such a thing, as a science, does not exist. To him, the Qur’ân forbids usury amongst human
beings, so any economic system that avoids usury is by definition Islamic. He goes further and says that if
two totally different economic systems work well in two different corners of the world, as long as they
avoid usury, they both are Islamic for their own peoples. But as soon as an economic system fails to bring
wealth and justice to people, even if there is no usury in it, it cannot be considered Islamic anymore. By this
last statement, he presents a very large and non-religious sense of what “Islamic” means, close to the usage
of the term in some pre-modern Muslim societies. For more information, see Mohammad Ali Zam,
Jomhour-e Jahani-ye Shi’e: Kolliyât-e Mohandesi-ye Farhangi. Tehran: Ketab-e Jomhour, 2006.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
90
In a broader sense, the ‘ulûm al-qur’ân study the revelation of the Qur’ân, its
tartîl and tajwîd (arts of recitation), its collection and compilation, its internal order and
arrangements, its writing down, the reasons and occasions of the revelation of its âyahs,
and of course its tafsîr (meaning(s)). To do so, the ‘ulûm al-qur’ân use a collection of
highly developed and varied sciences ranging from history and arabic linguistics to
ma‘ânî bayân (the science of rhetoric and eloquence).7 In a more precise sense, ‘ulûm al-
qur’ân also study the methods of study and explanation of the Qur’ân, as well as the life
of mufassirûn (exegetes of the Qur’ân) and their works. Issues such as nâsikh (abrogating
âyahs) and mansûkh (abrogated âyahs) or muḥkam (clear âyahs) and mutashâbih (unclear
or ambiguous âyahs) are of particular interest for the ‘ulûm al-qur’ân.
2.3 Different Subdivisions of the Qur’ânic Text
Today, an important characteristic of the Qur’ân is its uniformity in Arabic. Since its
compilation two decades after the Prophet’s death, this uniformity has been an
undeniable aspect of the text. Although there is a long history of scholarly and/or
confessional debates among different early Muslim groups, particularly between Shi’îs
and Sunnîs, on the possibility of some human manipulations of the Qur’ânic text, the
Arabic scripture of the Qur’ân, as we have it in hand today, is uniform letter by letter and
accent by accent all around the world.8 This uniformity unifies Muslims of different
7 Since a major part of tafsîr –as a science, founds its understanding of the text on aḥâdîth, the ‘ulûm al-
ḥadîth (the sciences of ḥadîth also called ‘ilm al-ḥadîth or the Science of ḥadîth) is directly involved in the
methods used within the ‘ulûm al-qur’ân. This brings a wide variety of sciences from ‘ilm al-ansâb
(geneology) and ‘ilm al-rijâl (the science of men’s nobility) to fiqh al-ḥadîth (the understanding of ḥadîth)
into the picture. Suyûṭî cites al-Nayshâbûrî (d. 406H) who writes: “25 ‘ulûm are [hidden] in the Qur’ân and
whoever does not master them all, does not merit to talk about the Book of God.” See Jalâl al-Dîn al-
Suyûṭî, Bughyat al-Wu‘ât fi Ṭabaqât al-Lughawiyyîn wa al-Nuḥât. Edited by Muḥammad Abu al-Faḍl
Ibrâhîm. 2 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Fikr, 1979 (vol. 1, p. 227).
8 In almost every book of tafsîr, one can find traces of these debates. As an example, in the beginning of
the tafsîr of chapter 9 of the Qur’ân (Sûrah Al-Tawbah), most mufassirûn report a serious debate among the
companions of the Prophet, some willing to include the basmala (the uniform opening verse at the
beginning of all sûrahs) at the beginning of that sûrah, and some refusing it. Similar debates are reported in
the tafsîr of many other âyahs. In some cases, as in 5:6, 26:6, and 94:6, the debate has been around a letter
in a word of the verse, in some cases, as in 2:132, 5:54, and 6:63, the debate has been about the form of a
verb in the verse, in some other cases, as in 23:17, the debate has been about two different verbs, each of
them bearing a different meaning, and finally, the biggest debate between some early Shi’î scholars and
their Sunnî fellow scholars has been about the existence of some Qur’ânic âyahs explicitly mentioning the
wilâya of ‘Ali ibn Abi Ṭâlib , purposely wiped off the first compiled Qur’ân under the third caliph. The
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
91
linguistic backgrounds around the same text in the same treated as sacred language. Any
attempt to change the structure of the Qur’ân, or to alter the order of its âyahs and/or
sûrahs, or to modify its words, or to break any of its letters is considered a blasphemy by
the devout majority of Muslims.9 This solid and untouchable “form” of the text has
resulted in a series of characteristics all directly or indirectly related to this uniformity.
These characteristics have always been at the center of Western scholars’
attention from the very beginning of the formation of Islamic Studies as an academic
filed in the nineteenth century. The first generation of “orientalists” interested in the
study of the Qur’ân, such as Sir William Muir (1819-1905C.E.) and Theodor Nöldeke
(1836-1930C.E.) began their scholarly efforts with a special attention to the internal
structure of the Qur’ân. They considered those classifications as a first step towards a
better understanding of not only the text, but also the Muslims’ worldview shaped by and
around this sacred text. Maybe it was because of those early scholars’ success at
“deconstructing” the Qur’ân and to reveal some of its messages and functions for
Muslims that a few decades later, almost every orientalist in Islamic Studies was, to a
degree, interested in dismantling the Qur’ân and discovering its “true meaning.” That is
how at the turn of the 20th
century, a large number of scholarly and non-scholarly essays
on the Qur’ân were published, many of them focusing, at least in part, on different
material aspects and elements of the text. Those works range from scholarly and skilful
papers to biased and simplistic essays, naively using some structural elements of the
Qur’ân as a wide open gate forunderstanding the Muslim World.10
The influence of the
Shi’î belief in the existence of those âyahs has gone as far as believing in a hidden and different Qur’ân
called Muṣḥaf al-Fâṭimah (the Book of Fâṭimah) written by ‘Ali ibn Abi Ṭâlib in more or less 6 months
(between the death of the Prophet and the death of Fâṭimah) to console his wife. Some Shi’î muḥâddithûn
narrate a ḥadîth from Imâm Ja‘far al-Ṣâdiq in which the Qur’ân of Fâṭimah has been described as three
times the length of the actual Qur’ânic text. According to some Shi’î sources, the Qur’ân of Fâṭimah will be
brought back to Muslims by the Mahdi at the end of time. For more details, see, for example, Muḥammad
b. Ya‘qûb al-Kulaynî, Uṣûl al-Kâfî, 8 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-Islâmiyyah, 1365H (vol. 1, p. 241). E-
published by Markaz al-Ish’â‘a al-Islâmî li al-Dirâsât wa al-Buḥûth al-Islâmiyyah, available online at
http://www.islam4u.com/maktabah_list.php?sid=3 (consulted on January 20th
2012).
9 It is not insignificant to mention that, although the majority of Muslims consider any attempt to change
and/or play with Qur’ânic accents as heretical, the first written Qur’âns did not have either accents or
punctuations.
10
More or less in the same era, another “movement” to study the Qur’ân started among missionaries and
orthodox adherents of other faiths. That movement’s main goal was to reveal the falsehood of the Qur’ânic
revelation and the weakness of the text. For example Rev. Thomas Patrick Hughes consecrated his life to
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
92
scholarly stream was so strong that many journalistic essays followed their path and
achieved interesting results.11
An example for a biased work with remarkable conclusions
is Charles Horswell’s brief study entitled The External Form of the Qur’ân, published in
1890. In his seven page article with no footnote or reference, he gives a short, descriptive,
and disorganized explanation of a few organizational elements in the Qur’ânic text, then
comparing the Qur’ân to the New Testament. Despite his subjective approach, which
suffers from different weaknesses12
, he rightly concludes:
The text of the Quran has been preserved with the greatest care. To
countenance a various reading is by a Muslim regarded as an offense
against the state. “No other work” (says Muir) “has remained for twelve
centuries with so pure a text… Aside from the parallel divisions of chapter
and verse, the Quran and the Bible are divided for systematic reading in
public service… The necessity of a careful study of the historic back-
ground is ever present in the Quran, …in the scientific interpretation of the
material… The absence of historical data …is most worthy of notice.
Muhammed’s name occurs but five times in the Quran, and only two
contemporaries are mentioned. If we put beside this the statement from the
lips of Ali, “There is not a verse in the Quran of which I do not know the
matter, the parties to whom it refers, and the place and time of its
revelation, whether by night or by day, whether in the plains or upon the
mountain,” and keep in mind at the same time the immense activity and
the many personal encounters of the prophet’s life, we are led to wonder at
the suppression of historic detail…13
I would argue that the preservation Horswell mentions has been possible, in part, with the
discuss with Muslims in India trying to convert them to Christianity. As a part of his missionary duties, he
published some interesting articles on the Qur’ân. Another example of an academician consecrating the last
years of his life to the fight against the Qur’ân is Gustav Weil (1808-1889). Weil’s six-part article is a clear
example of the danger pertaining to the “academization” of confessional battles against the sacred text of
another faith, in this case, Islam. See Gustav Weil, “An Introduction to the Qur’ân.” The Biblical World,
vol. 5, No. 3-6, and vol. 6, No. 1-2 (May-Aug. 1895).
11
It is interesting to know that, in the later 20th
century, a reverse approach, such as the use of the word
“fundamentalism,” has sometimes taken place.
12
One example of Horswell’s weak work is when he indirectly promotes an Islamic trinity composed of
Allâh, Archangel Gabriel and Muḥammad. He says that the Islamic numerology had predicted from the
very beginning of the appearance of Islam, the number of years (71) in which Islam would expand all
around the world. He reaches his conclusion by adding the numerical representations of those three names.
He does not give any reference or source for this purported Islamic conviction. See Charles Horswell, “The
External Form of the Qur’ân.” The Old and New Testament Student, vol. 11, No. 6 (Dec. 1890): 341-348
(p. 343).
13
Ibid., 346-8.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
93
help of a series of systematic subdivisions of the text according to different criteria.
Indeed these classifications have functioned as different identities for Qur’ânic passages
whether single âyahs and/or a group of âyahs or sûrahs.14
Meanwhile the personal and
historical contexts that he points to, as a hermeneutical tool for the understanding of the
Qur’ânic messages, remain undiscovered by mufassirûn. Despite the careful preservation
and anxious study of asbâb al-nuzûl by both mufassirûn and Muslim historians within
‘ulûm al-qur’ân, to many of them, the historical context of an âyah is nothing more than
an earthly reason for the revelation of some other pieces of a divine puzzle picturing the
“Truth.” When it comes to the subdivisions of the Qur’ânic text by Muslims themselves,
the only criterion that, to some degree, pays attention to the historical context of the
revelation is the subdivision of âyahs and sûrahs into makkî (Meccan, that is, revealed in
Mecca) and madanî (Medinan, that is, revealed in Medina).
2.3.1 The Subdivision of the Qur’ânic Text into juz’, ḥizb, and rub‘
There are different opinions on who first initiated the subdivision of the Qur’ânic text
into parts of ajzâ’ (the plural form of juz’), aḥzâb (the plural form of ḥizb), and arbâ‘ (the
plural form of rub‘), as currently present in the Qur’ânic text. Some mufassirûn report the
existence of different Qur’ânic subdivisions in the Prophet’s era determined by the
Prophet himself. For example, Sijistânî consecrates a whole bâb (chapter) to the Qur’ân’s
taḥzîb (the subdivision of the Qur’ân into parts) by the Prophet, and narrates several
aḥâdîth with different degrees of authenticity, confirming it. According to some of those
aḥâdîth, the Prophet divided the Qur’ân into parts, so that each part can be read within a
certain amount of time. At the end of a long ḥadîth, Aws b. Ḥudhayfa asked some
14 Although the description of each subdivision will come later in this chapter, to better understand this
argument, it is important to give a couple of examples. The first example is the specific usage of the last
juz’ of the Qur’ân for the debutants in the learning of the Qur’ân. In all maktabas, primary students of the
Qur’ân start their education with the last juz’ of the Qur’ân called ‘ammah juz’ (the juz’ that starts with the
term ‘amma). There is a common belief among Muslims that the last juz’ of the Qur’ân is easier to learn,
recite and memorize than any other juz’. Consequently, the memorization of the Qur’ân follows a specific
path always starting with the last juz’. This gives ‘amma juz’ the characteristic of being the easiest-to-be-
memorised part of the Qur’ân. Another example is a common belief about the protective mystical power of
the last four sûrahs of the Qur’ân starting with the term qul (say). This belief results the memorization of
those sûrahs in the early childhood, their recitation throughout life, and their decorative usage in Muslim
homes. Consequently, the “four qul” sûrahs find a specific function, as well as an independent identity
within the Qur’ânic text.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
94
companions of the Prophet about how he should subdivide and recite the Qur’ân. They
answered:
Aws said: I asked the companions of the messenger of Allâh peace be
upon him –about how they subdivide the Qur’ân. They said: three, and
five, and seven, and nine, and eleven and thirteen, and the separating
[final] ḥizb alone [wa ḥizb al- mufaṣṣil waḥdah].15
This specific ḥadîth, and many other similar ones, have been narrated by several
mufassirûn, supporting the fact that the idea as well as some sort of factual Qur’ânic
subdivisions existed in the Prophet’s era.16
But mufassirûn are unanimous about the fact
that those subdivisions were different from the Qur’ânic subdivisions that have emerged
with the canonisation of the Qur’ânic text shortly after the death of the Prophet
Muḥammad. The Qur’ân that we have in hand today is divided into thirty equal ajzâ’,
then each juz’ is divided into two equal aḥzâb and each ḥizb is divided in its turn into four
equal arbâ’.17
Although there is no consensus among mufassirûn on who first initiated the i‘râb
(vowel adding) and the i‘jâm (dotting) of the Qur’ânic letters/words, when it comes to the
subdivision of the Qur’ânic text into parts, most mufassirûn consider the Umayyad
administrator and later ruler of Ḥijâz and Irak, al-Ḥajjâj ibn Yûsuf al-Thaqafî (41-95H)
15 See ḥadîth number 1395 in Al-Sijistânî, Sunan Abu Dâwûd, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=6140 (consulted on January 25th
2012).
16
The appearance of the ḥadîth leads to believe that the Prophet had different subdivisions for different
needs. Accepting this interpretation of ḥadîth, the logic behind some of those numbers such as three for
reciting the Qur’ân within the three periods of ten days of a month, or seven for its recitation within the
seven days of the week seem quite predictable, but to reveal the logic behind numbers such as five or nine,
one must be familiar with the lifestyle of early Muslims and the rhythm of their monthly or yearly
activities. However, Zarkashî and Suyûṭî understand it differently. In Al-Burhân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân,
Zarkashî explains this ḥadîth according to which the Qur’ân was subdivided into five parts: first, the first
three sûrahs (excluding Al-Fâtiḥa), then the next five sûrahs, then the next seven sûrahs, then the next
eleven sûrahs, then the next thirteen sûrahs, and finally the rest of the Qur’ân from Sûrah Al-Qâf (Chapter
50) to Sûrah Al-Nâs (Chapter 114) as a ḥizb mufaṣṣal (separated part). Suyûṭî agrees with him. See Al-
Zarkashî, Al-Burhân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân (vol. 1 p. 247), available online at
http://www.imanhearts.com/mobiles.php?action=show&id=2781 (consulted on January 25th
2012). See
also Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:63.
17
A few weeks ago, for the first time, I came across a Qur’ân published in Turkey that is subdivided
differently from all other Qur’âns that I have seen so far. This Qur’ân has thirty ajzâ’, but each juz’ is
divided into four ḥizb and there is no mention of rub‘ in it. It might be one of the consequences of the
laicization of Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938), and the standardization of Islam under his
governance. But this suggestion needs further research. Here is the bibliographical information: Kur’an-i
Kerim Ve Satir arasi Kelime Meali. Ed. by Muammer Uysal. Istanbul: Kervan Yayin-Dagitim, 2009.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
95
to be the first one who, despite the unhappiness and protests of most Muslims who
considered him savage, obliged his contemporary ḥuffâẓ (those who knew the Qur’ân by
heart) and Qurr’â’ (the professional reciters of the Qur’ân in public) to finalize the
dotting of the Qur’ânic letters, and to number those letters, then to carefully subdivide the
Qur’ân into ajzâ’, then subdivide every juz’ into aḥzâb, and arbâ’ the exact same way
Muslims have inherited it today.18
Some other mufassirûn mention that Ḥajjâj committed
that imposition by the direct order of Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd al-Mâlik b. Marwân (26-
86H).19
Sijistânî confirms it and reports twice that about 11 “corrections” were ordered
by Ḥajjâj on the orthography of some Qur’ânic words while organizing the text.20
Mufassirûn are unanimous on the fact that whoever commanded the organization, or the
reorganization of the Qur’ân into the current subdivisions, did so in order to end some
serious debates that had occurred among Muslims on the pronunciation of Qur’ânic
words and their orthographies. It is obvious why the “standardization” of the text by
adding vowels and dots probably helped to end the debates and to avoid future
disagreements among Muslims on the pronunciation of the Qur’ânic words. Yet none of
the mufassirûn explain why and in what way the subdivisions of the Qur’ân might have
18 Beside the fact that, despite the absence of historical evidence, some Muslims scholars consider the
Prophet himself to be the first one who ordered the dotting and the vowel adding of the Qur’ânic text, four
people have been mentioned as the ones who first initiated that process. They are: Abu al-Aswad al-Du’alî,
Yaḥyâ b. Ya‘mar, Naṣr b. ‘Âṣim al-Laythî, and Ḥasan al-Baṣrî. See Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-
Qur’ân, 2:171.
19
Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah (d. 543H) is among those who sincerely believed that it was the Caliph who decided to
reorganize the Qur’ân and Ḥajjâj was just an agent. See Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah’s introduction to his tafsîr: ‘Abd al-
Haq b. abi Bakr b. ‘Abd al-Mâlik al-Gharnâṭî, Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, Al-Jâmi‘ al-Muḥarrir al-Ṣaḥîḥ al-Wajîz fi
Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-‘Azîz, 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2001.
20
See al-Sijistânî, Kitâb al-Maṣâḥif. It is not insignificant to mention that some “orientalists” have used
this double report of Sijistânî as a proof for the falsification of the ‘Uthmânic Qur’ân by al-Ḥajjâj. Arthur
Jeffrey is among the first ones who discuss this issue. In his book, The Qur’ân As Scripture, published in
1952, Jeffery presents the hypothesis of the manipulation of the Qur’ânic text as coming from Ḥajjâj’s own
hidden purpose behind his order. Gilchrist, an anti-Islam Christian missionary active on the Internet, quotes
Jeffrey and others to build a whole argument concluding the undisputable falsification of the Muslim sacred
text by al-Ḥajjâj. To read Jeffery’s argument, see Arthur Jeffery, The Qur’ân As Scripture. New York:
Russell F. Moore Company Inc., 1952. To read Gilchrist’s analysis, see John Gilchrist, Jâmi‘ al-Qur’ân:
The Codification Of the Qur’ân Text. Distributed by MERCSA, 1989. Right after Gilchrist distributed his
book on the Internet, many Muslim groups reacted to both Jeffrey and Gilchrist, responding against their
accusations. To read an example of a more or less academic response, see the article by M. S. M. Saifullah
& Muḥammad Ghoniem entitled Al-Ḥajjâj, Kitâb al-Maṣâḥif & Gilchrist, published in Islamic Awareness
Web Site at the following address:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/GilHajjaj.html (consulted on January 25th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
96
helped to end those debates. For example, both Sijistânî and Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah discuss in
details the problem of different pronunciations of Qur’ânic words. They carefully
mention some major cases of debate among early Muslims on those miswritings and/or
mispronunciations. But when it comes to the mathematical subdivisions of the text,
Sijistânî briefly writes: “… Ḥajjâj gathered the ḥuffâẓ and the qurrâ’ and obliged them to
number the Qur’ânic letters. Then he determined its half, its quarters, its sixths and its
thirds.”21
Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah’s version is even shorter. He writes: “… and he [Ḥajjâj]
committed it in the city/region of Wâsiṭ and added taḥzîb (subdividing the Qur’ân into
ḥizbs) to it.”22
They do not explain why this could have helped calming down those
debates, and how Muslims reacted to that bid‘a. Suyûṭî mentions the popularity of
takhmis (making five of something), and ta‘shîr (making ten of something) of the Qur’ân.
According to those traditions, some early Muslims were putting each five or each ten
Qur’ânic âyahs together and were reciting them as independent parts.23
Again, Suyûṭî
does not explain what happened to those traditions and how they disappeared from the
Islamic tradition.
2.3.1.1 A Feminist Hypothesis
This thesis uses neither feminist approaches, nor is it, in any sense of the term, a feminist
effort/essay, Nevertheless, while searching different sources and looking for an
explanation by early Muslim scholars on the tahzib of the Qur’ân, I came accross a few
aḥâdîth strongly encouraging Muslims to recite the Qur’ân on a daily basis. For example:
‘Ali narrated from his father from Ḥammâd from Ḥarîz from Abi
‘Abdillâh (peace be upon him) saying: “The Qur’ân is the alliance of God
with his creatures. Therefore it is worthwhile that every man keeps his
alliance with God by reciting fifty âyahs per day.”24
Although the Qur’ânic term mar’ (man) appearing in this ḥadîth can be considered a
21 Abu Dâwûd al-Sijistânî, Kitâb al-Maṣâḥif, 119-20.
22
Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, Al-Jâmi‘ al-Muḥarrir al-Ṣaḥîḥ al-Wajîz fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-Azîz.
23
See Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 2:171.
24
Al-Kulaynî, Uṣûl al-Kâfî, vol. 2, p. 609, available online at
http://www.islam4u.com/maktabah_list.php?sid=3 (consulted on February 14th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
97
reference to both men and women,25
it reminded me that according to most juridical
madhâhib, women are strongly discouraged to recite the Qur’ân while in their ḥayḍ
(menstruation period).26
Also, all madhâhib forbid women to touch the script of the
Qur’ân when they are in their monthly period. In many Muslim cultures, people, both
men and women, try to recite the Qur’ân at least once per year. In addition, many
practicing Muslims recite the Qur’ân between the beginning and the end of the month of
Ramaḍân. To facilitate this latter ritual, many Muslim radio stations broadcast a daily
tartîl (careful and slow recitation) of a Qur’ânic juz’ starting with the first juz’ on the first
day of the month of fast and going on till the last juz’ recited on the thirtieth day. These
radio programs are highly appreciated by non-arabophone Muslims in particular, because
they cannot easily recite the Qur’ân by themselves.27
On that basis, applicable so far to
both men and women, except when the latter is in a period of menstruation, a question
specific to women arose in my mind: if a woman decides to read the Qur’ân at least once
per year, besides the highly recommended and popularly practiced recitation during
ramaḍân, how much of the Qur’ân per day would she recite? Let us explore the answer to
this question in order to develop a (re)new(ed) understanding of how a particular kind of
subdivision of the Qur’ân, the arbâ’, came to appear in order to answer needs specific to
Muslim women.
Although according to some madhâhib ḥayḍ can last as short as 3 days or as long
as 10 days, most madhâhib agree on the fact that 7 days (one full week) is the “normal”
25 The term mar’ appears four times in the Qur’ân (2:102; 8:24; 78:40; 80:34) and, in its last three
appearnces, it refers to both men and women. See the tafâsîr on the concerned âyahs.
26
All schools of Shari’ah agree that a hâ’iḍ (a woman in ḥayḍ) can neither pray the mandatory prayers nor
fast while being in her ḥayḍ. However, there is no consensus among them on the recitation of the Qur’ân
during that monthly period. While Salafi and Wahhabi schools forbid it, the Twever Shi’î school considers
it as “extremely to be avoided” but not forbidden.
27
This practice fascinates Jane. D. McAuliffe. In her article entitled The Persistent Power of the Qur’ân,
she writes:
Have you ever jumped into a cab in Cairo or Kuala Lumpur and heard the melodious sounds of the
recited Qur’ân emanate from the cab’s radio or tape deck? Maybe you have turned on the
television in your hotel room and found yourself with a station devoted to twenty-four-hour
Qur’ân recitation. Especially might this be so during Ramadan, the Muslim month of fast.
For the full article, see Jane Dammen McAuliffe, “The Persistent Power of the Qur’ân.” Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, vol. 147, No. 4 (Dec. 2003): 339-346 (p. 344).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
98
length of a woman’s ḥayḍ.28
In addition, and in accordance with early Islamic medical
sciences, these madhâhib consider 28 days to be the “normal” time between the
beginnings of two consecutive menstruations. So it is assumed that women “normally”
have 13 menstruations per year. According to the Islamic lunar calendar, the year is 11
days shorter than the Gregorian Solar year, so Muslims have 354 days in an Islamic year.
If we exclude 30 days from the ordinary daily recitation of the Qur’ân, which is the
maximum possible days the month of ramaḍân can last, there remains 324 days. Now, if
we multiply 7 (the number of days a “normal” menstruation last) by 12, for each
remaining months (one menstruation out of 13 will happen in the month of ramaḍân), it
becomes necessary to delete 84 days from the previous number of 324. The final result is
240 days, which corresponds to the exact number of the Qur’ân’s arbâ’ subdivision. This
particular kind of subdivision therefore exists to answer the particular context of a
woman’s traditionally needs to recite the Qur’ân every day of the year, minus during the
month of ramaḍân (when she is expected, like men, to recite the whole Qur’ân) and the
weeks during which she is in her menstruating period.
The above calculations can explain this one particular kind of subdivision of the
Qur’ân, based on the “normality” of a woman’s body, as well as the standardization of
the month of ramaḍân’s number of days. What I am putting forward by these calculations
is a feminist hypothesis of how early Muslims were so concerned with the memorization
and the daily recitation of the Qur’ân by all Muslims that they developed a particular kind
of subdivision to match the number of days in which a “normal” female body is “pure
enough” to recite the Qur’ân (excluding the special recitation of ramaḍân).29
Early
scholars of Islamic sciences were therefore facilitating this duty for women and
28 Any extra days after the end of ḥayḍ is referred to by another technical term called istiḥâḍa. Although
there are some obligatory ablutions during istiḥâḍa, it does not prevent a Muslim woman from praying,
fasting or reciting the Qur’ân. For two examples of the afore-mentioned fatwas, see Sayyid Rûḥullâh al-
Mûsawî al-Khumaynî, Resâleh-ye Towzih ol-Masâel. E-published by 4shared.com, available online at
http://search.4shared.com/postDownload/AjnVU8pa/resaleh_ayatollah_khomeini.html (consulted on
February 14th
2012); and Sayyid ‘Ali al-Ḥusaynî al-Sîstânî, Tawḍiḥ al-Masâ’il. E-published by the official
web site of the author at http://www.sistani.org/index.php?p=251364&id=48 (consulted on February 14th
2012).
29
To consolidate this hypothesis, further studies with authentic historical-textual evidences is necessary.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
99
regulating it based on a “normal” Muslim woman’s biological particularities.30
2.3.2 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into makkî (Meccan) and madanî (Medinan)
One of the first and most popular subdivisions of Qur’ânic âyahs is dividing them into
Meccan and Medinan. According to the history of Islam, the Prophet started his prophetic
mission in Mecca at the age of forty (c 610C.E.). He lived and promoted the Muslim faith
in Mecca for about 13 years. At the age of 52 or 53, in 622C.E., he migrated to Yathrib
later called Madinah al-Nabî (the City of the Prophet) or al-Medina (the city). He lived
there for 10 years and passed away at the age of 62 in 632C.E. To these two distinct
geographical locations corresponds the clear subdivision into Meccan and Medinan
periods of divine revelation for Muslims. Over time, three theories have been discussed
by Muslim scholars to explain that kind of subdivision of the Qur’ân.
First: Meccan and Medinan are references to the place of the revelation.
According to this theory, a Meccan âyah is an âyah revealed in Mecca even if its
revelation has happened after the Prophet’s migration to Medina (as after the conquest of
Mecca), and by the same logic, a Medinan âyah is an âyah revealed in Medina. Suyûṭî
considers the outskirts of both cities as included in the definition. So to him, âyahs
revealed in Munâ or Hudaybiyya are Meccan, and âyahs revealed in Badr or Uhud are
Medinans.31
This definition seems to have a major problem. The problem is that by
definition, âyahs revealed in Tabûk and in Jerusalem are neither Meccan nor Medinan,
and no third categorization, or exception, has been mentioned by mufassirûn.32
Second: Meccan and Medinan are references to the audiences of the revelation.
According to this theory, a Meccan âyah is an âyah that talks to pagan inhabitants of
Mecca, and a Medinan âyah is an âyah having the inhabitants of Medina as its audience.
Abu ‘Ubayd al-Harawî (d. 401H), the author of Faḍâ’il al-Qur’ân cites other scholars
30 Those who are familiar with shari’ah know the central role and the importance of al-‘urf (norms of
behaviour in a society) in al-fiqh. The only thing that can turn a ḥalâl or even mustaḥab into ḥarâm (but not
necessarily the opposite) is the ‘urf. A simple example would be the forbidding of al-kuhul for men where
it is not a social norm.
31
See Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:8-9.
32
All mufassirûn are unanimous that 9:42 was revealed in Tabûk, a village situated 1000 kilometers north
of Mecca. They all believe also that 43:45 was revealed in Jerusalem during the first stage of the Prophet’s
ascension.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
100
and says that wherever an âyah starts with yâ ayyuha al-ladhina âmanû (O you who
believe), the âyah is Medinan, and wherever an âyah starts with yâ ayyuha al-nâs (O
humankind) or with yâ banî-âdam (O children of Adam) that âyah is Meccan. Although
this definition helps classifying âyahs based on their messages and intended audiences
rather than the geographical location of its revelation, it remains totally silent when it
comes to âyahs not using any of the three above- opening expressions.33
Third: Meccan and Medinan are references to the time of the revelation.
According to this theory, all âyahs revealed before the migration of the Prophet to
Yathrib are Meccan even if they have been revealed as far as in Jerusalem or if they
include expressions such as “O you who believe,” while âyahs revealed during or after
the migration of the Prophet to Yathrib are Medinan. This theory solves the problems of
the two previous theories.34
However, the terms of “Meccan” and “Medinan” do not
intuitively reflect the definitions behind them.
2.3.2.1 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic sûrahs into Meccan and Medinan
It is not insignificant to mention that the categorization of the Qur’ânic sûrahs into
Meccan and Medinan is a relative nomination because many sûrahs of the Qur’ân are
composed of both Meccan and Median âyahs. In fact, each of the two categories has its
own subcategories. Muslim scholars divide the Meccan sûrahs into two subcategories:
first, those sûrahs that are fully composed of Meccan âyahs; and second, those sûrahs
with most of their âyahs being Meccan mixed with a few Medinan âyahs. Parallel to the
previous case, the category of Medinan sûrahs has two subcategories: first, those sûrahs
that are fully composed of Medinan âyahs; and second, those sûrahs with most of their
âyahs being Medinan mixed with a few Meccan âyahs.35
Zarkashî cites al-Ja‘barî (d.
33 According to this definition, 22:77 would be a Medinan âyah even though all mufassirûn are unanimous
that it was revealed in Mecca. Also âyahs such as 4:1 and 2:21, 168 would be classified under Meccan
despite the fact that all mufassirûn believe that they have been revealed in Medina.
34
According to this theory, âyahs such as 4:58 revealed in the Ka‘ba after the conquest of Mecca, or 5:3
revealed in the desert of ’Arafah near Mecca during the last ḥajj of the Prophet are all Medinan âyahs.
35
For the sûrahs with mixed âyahs, some Muslim scholars have suggested to classify sûrahs according to
the Meccan or the Medinan aspect of their first few âyahs. Others have suggested giving the priority to
whatever kind of âyahs that may be in a majority. Suyûṭî carefully discusses the subject matter of the
categorization of Qur’ânic sûrahs into Meccan and Medinan, and presents detailed explanations about what
early mufassirûn have said. He concludes that according to most mufassirûn, 82 sûrahs are Meccan, 20
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
101
732H) who says: “To recognize the Meccan from the Medinan there are only two ways:
al-samâ’î (hearing) and al-qiyâsî (comparing). Whatever has been said to us [about the
Qur’ânic âyahs or sûrahs by the Prophet or by his companions] is al-samâ’î, and for al-
qiyâsî, we have signs [as tools to compare Qur’ânic âyahs or sûrahs with each other].”36
These “signs” range from Qur’ânic terms specific to an era of the Prophet’s life to
dominant themes in Qur’ânic sûrahs.37
Down the centuries, Muslim scholars’ passionate
search for “true and authentic signs” has given birth to a wide variety of different
classifications of the Qur’ânic âyahs and/or sûrahs. Some of those classifications are, for
example, al-laylî versus al-nahâry (âyahs revealed at night versus âyahs revealed during
the day), al-safarî versus al-ḥaḍarî (âyahs revealed during a trip versus âyahs revealed
while staying), al-ṣayfî versus al-shitâ’î (âyahs revealed in summer versus âyahs revealed
in winter). Even âyahs revealed in hot weather versus âyahs revealed in cold have been
meticulously studied and discussed among Muslim scholars.38
Although being confessional efforts, the above-mentioned studies provide
valuable data for rational contextual studies of the Qur’ân, including researches using
historico-critical methods. The German orientalist and the librarian of the University of
Heidelberg, Gustav Weil is among the first Westerners who used Muslims’ Meccan
versus Medinan categorization to reveal the chronology of the revelation and to study the
Qur’ân in its historical contexts. In his own confessional efforts, while trying to
disqualify the revelatory nature of the Qur’ân and to reduce it to “an illusory repetition”
of some Bible stories done by “an epileptic so-called Prophet,” he categorized the
sûrahs are Medinan, and 12 sûrahs are the subject of debate. The Medinan sûrahs are numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
9, 24, 33, 47, 48, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, and 110. The 12 sûrahs being the subject of debate are
numbers 1, 13, 55, 61, 64, 83, 97, 98, 99, 112, 113, and 114. The rest of the Qur’ânic sûrahs are considered
to be Meccan. See Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fî ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:11.
36
Al-Zarkashî, Al-Burhân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân (vol. 1, p. 189), available online at
http://www.imanhearts.com/mobiles.php?action=show&id=2781 (consulted on January 25th
2012).
37
For terms specific to the Meccan revelations, Zarkashî gives the example of kallâ (Nay). This term
showing God’s strong rejection has been repeated 33 times in 15 different sûrahs, all of them Meccan. For
the themes, he mentions the stories of previous prophets and peoples. These stories are the sign of a
Meccan revalation, except for what has been narrated in “al-Baqara” (sûrah number 2). Many other criteria,
such as a sûrah that includes an âyah with al-sajda al-wâjiba (obligatory prostration), or a sûrah starting
with some specific al-ḥurûf al-muqatta’a (disjointed letters such as alif, lâm, mîm, or alif, lâm, râ’) have
also been discussed in his book. See ibid., 188-90.
38
See, for example, Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:21.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
102
Qur’ânic sûrahs into four eras of the Prophet’s life, three Meccans and one Medinan.39
Nöldeke used Weil’s classification and, with some minor changes, published it in his
famous work: Geschichte des Qorans. As explained before, many scholars, such as
Rodwell and Derenbourg, followed his method including the Meccan versus Medinan
categorization. They were all unanimous about the fact that an exact knowledge on “the
time and the place of the revelation” is key to the understanding of its formation as an
historical human product.40
2.3.3 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic sûrahs According to Their Length
The subdivision of the Qur’ânic sûrahs according to their length goes back to the
Prophet’s era. Suyûṭî and many other Muslim scholars record a ḥadîth in which the
Prophet says: “I have been given al-sab‘ al-ṭuwal (the seven long ones) instead of Torah,
and al-ma’ûn (the one hundred ones) instead of Psalms, and al-mathâni (the twins)
instead of Gospel, and I have been granted superiority by al-mufaṣṣal (the separated
ones).”41
Based on this ḥadîth and some others, early Muslim scholars have divided the
Qur’ânic sûrahs into four main groups:
1- al-sab‘ al-ṭuwal or the first seven sûrahs of the Qur’ân after Sûrah Al-Fâtiḥa.
These seven are the longest sûrahs of the Qur’ân.
2- al-ma’ûn or those sûrahs that are composed of more or less 100 âyahs such as
sûrahs 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 26, 37, etc.
3- al-mathânî. There is no consensus among Muslim scholars on what sûrahs must
39 See Gustav Weil, Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in den Koran. Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing, 1844,
available online at http://www.archive.org/details/historischkriti00weilgoog (consulted on March 8th
2012).
40
It is important to mention that parallel to Nöldeke’s and his followers’ efforts, two other scholars, one
Austrian and the other British, focused on the chronology of the Qur’ânic revelations trying to understand
better its messages through its historical context. Aloïs Sprenger (1813-1893C.E.) and William Muir tried
to reclassify Qur’ânic âyahs and sûrahs based on their time and place of revelation. To do so, their main
tool was the Prophet’s biography recorded by Muslims themselves. While paying special attention to the
Prophet’s battles, Sprenger and Muir divided the Qur’ân into six categories: five Meccans and one
Medinan. Unlike Weil, their works do not suffer from an obvious bias, although there are some apparent
subjectivities. Their conclusions and classification, however, were often based on aḥâdîth with a very low
degree of authenticity. In his famous book on the Qur’ân, Blachère briefly criticises this weak aspect of
Spranger’s and Muir’s works; he hesitates about the credibility of their re-classification of Qur’ânic sûrahs.
See Régis Blachère, Introduction au Coran. 2e édition. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, 1991 (p. 248, n.
359).
41
Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 1:26.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
103
be considered under this category. Some believe that they are the second seven
sûrahs after al-sab‘ al-ṭuwal, some have mentioned a list of sûrahs with no
similarity in their lengths, and some others have said: “Whatever is not under the
three other categories belong to this category.”42
4- al-mufaṣṣal or those short sûrahs that are separated by basmala (the formula at
the beginning of each Qur’ânic sûrah, except sûrah 9).43
Beside the fact that this categorisation does not contribute much to the understanding of
the messages of the Qur’ânic sûrahs, the separation of sûrahs by basmala as a method of
subdivision has a major problem. The problem is that there is no consensus among
Muslim scholars on this sentence being a Qur’ânic âyah or not. While many mufassirûn
exclude it from the revelation, some consider it being revealed 114 times, 113 times of
which as the separators at the beginning of Qur’ânic sûrahs. In his book entitled Le
Coran est-il authentique? Mondher Sfar discusses this issue and concludes that:
… la Tradition musulmane a hésité à compter la basmala comme verset
même si la vulgate actuelle ne la considère pas comme tel. D’après la
Tradition, certains recueils de Coran auraient assimilé cette formule à un
verset, faisant augmenter le nombre total des versets coraniques de 114.
Dans son Kitâb al-kashf, al-Qaysî qui a rapporté ce fait, a rejeté cette
pratique en tant que non conforme au consensus des Compagnons du
Prophète et à celui de leurs successeurs immédiats. En fait, il a existé deux
doctrines qui ont opposé deux importantes Écoles juridiques : celle des
jurisconsultes de Médine, de Baṣra et de Syrie qui ont refusé d’accorder à
la basmala le statut de verset, la réduisant à une simple technique
éditoriale servant dans les codices coraniques de séparation entre les
sourates, ou au mieux de formule de bénédiction. Quant aux Jurisconsultes
shafi’ites de la Mecque et de Kûfa, ils ont considéré la basmala comme un
verset à part entière et l’ont prononcée à voix haute. Mais il existe une
indication fort intéressante sur la place de la basmala aux origines de
l’islam. En effet, la Tradition concernant la lecture du Coran nous informe
que Muḥammad n’aurait pas récité la basmala quand il lisait les sourates
les unes après les autres. De son côté, Ḥamza qui est un des Sept lecteurs
canoniques n’aurait pas prononcé la formule de la basmala entre les
sourates. Al-Qaysî qui l’a rapporté en donne cette explication : « Quand la
42 Ibid., 63.
43
This fourth category has been divided into three subcategories: al-tiwâl (longer short sûrahs) from
sûrah 49 to sûrah 85; al-awsât (middle short sûrahs) from sûrah 86 to sûrah 98; and al-qiṣâr (shorter short
sûrahs) from sûrah 99 to sûrah 114. However the first sûrah of the Qur’ân, Al-Fâtiḥa, despite its very short
length, does not belong to any of these categories.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
104
basmala n’était pas pour lui - et de l’avis des juristes - considérée comme
un verset, il l’a omise lors du passage d’une sourate à une autre, afin que
l’on ne suppose pas qu’elle constitue un verset situé au début de la [79]
sourate. Ainsi, pour lui, le Coran est, dans sa totalité, pris pour une seule
sourate … Quant à sa présence dans le recueil coranique, ce n’est que
comme moyen d’indiquer qu’une sourate est terminée et qu’une autre
commence. » … Ce n’est que tardivement, lors de la phase dite de collecte
du texte coranique, que la basmala a fini par être rattachée à chacune des
sourates.44
2.3.4 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into muḥkam and mutashâbih
The subdivision of the Qur’ânic âyahs into muḥkam (being also translated as univocal or
solid) and mutashâbih (ambiguous) is probably the most important kind of subdivisions
of the revelation for Muslims. This classification comes from a Qur’ânic âyah clarifying
that there exist in the Qur’ân some âyât muḥkamât (clear âyahs) versus âyat
mutashâbihât (ambiguous âyahs).45
3:7 reads:
ت ـو به ـو ب وأخر متش ـو ت هن أم ٱلكت ـو حكم مت ـو ه ءاي ب م ـو ٱلكت ي ا ٱلذين هو ٱلذى أنزل أم
ه ٱبتغاء ٱلفتة وٱبتغاء تأويهۦى قوبهم زيغ يتبعون ما به م ـو وما يعم تأويه تش ون ۥ إل ٱلل ت وٱلر
ا د رب ن م م يقولون ءاما بهۦ ب ى ٱلع ـو أولوا ٱللب ر إل وما يذ
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muḥammad) the Scripture wherein
are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others
(which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue,
forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking
to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are
of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord;
but only men of understanding really heed.
Much has been written by Muslim scholars about this categorization and its theological
implications. It is almost impossible to find a mufassir who has not discussed this issue in
44 Mondher Sfar, Le Coran est-il authentique? 3
e édition. Paris: Édition Sfar, 2006 (pp. 64-65), available
online at http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/sfar_mondher/coran_authentique/coran_authentique.pdf
(consulted on March 8th
2012).
45
The term muḥkam appears only twice in the Qur’ân. The first appearance in 3:7 is the foundation of the
subdivision of the text into muḥkam and mutashâbih, and the second appearance in 47:20 supports the idea
of such a subdivision. 47:20 reads: “And those who believe say: If only a sûrah were revealed! But when a
decisive sûrah is revealed and war is mentioned therein, thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease
looking at thee with the look of men fainting unto death. Therefor woe unto them!” In 3:7, Pickthall
translates the term as “allegorical”; but here he translates it as “decisive.” None of the translations relate the
âyahs to the concept of muḥkam.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
105
detail within at least one of hisworks.46
A quick look at any tafsîr on 3:7 reveals the
trueness of this assertion.47
As many other Qur’ânic issues, the definitions of muḥkam
and mutashâbih have been subjects to many scholarly debates. Many different
possibilities have been presented by Muslim scholars. Here are some examples.
Imâm Fakhr al-Râzî’s preferred explanation begins with first quoting a definition
by Abu Bakr al-Aṣam (201-279H): âyahs talking about issues whose understanding does
not require any argument, analysis or deep reflection, such as the uniqueness of God, his
power or his wisdom, are muḥkam; then âyahs whose understanding requires human
reflection and analysis are mutashâbih. Then al-Râzî explains his own theory in which he
argues that words, according to the relationship between them and their meanings, can be
categorized under four categories. First, al-naṣṣ, is a category in which the word holds a
clear meaning with no room for any other possible meaning. Second, al-ẓâhir, is a
category in which the word holds a clear meaning but although improbable, the
possibility of another meaning also exists. Third, al-mushtarak, is a category in which the
word holds two or more meanings with equal possibilities in the sentence. Four, al-
mu’awwal, is a category in which the word holds two or several meanings and the true
meaning is the one which is not apparent. To him an âyah is muḥkam when all its words
are from the first two categories, and it is mutashâbih when there is at least one of its
words coming from one of the two last categories. His theory, by nature, gives room to
different degrees of being muḥkam or mutashâbih.48
Râghib al-Iṣfahânî’s definitions of muḥkam and mutashâbih are not far from those
of Râzî. Râghib (d. 502H) believes that the uncertainty and the difficulty in the
interpretation of a mutashâbih can come from the word and its different pronunciations
independently from the meaning, or can be rooted in the ambiguity of the meaning,
although its relationship with the word is clear.49
46 For a scholarly work on the concepts of muḥkam and mutashâbih in some classical mufassirûn’s works,
see Sahiron Syamsuddin, “Muḥkam and Mutashâbih: An Analytical Study of al-Ṭabarî’s and al-
Zamakhsharî’s Interpretations of Q.3:7.” Journal of Qur’ânic Studies, vol. 1, No. 1 (1999): 63-79.
47
I verified the tafâsîr of Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî, Râzî, Ibn Kathîr, Qurṭubî, Suyûṭî, Bayḍâwî, Shûkânî, and
Ṭabâṭabâ’î.
48
For more details, see Al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb (vol. 7, p. 72-80), available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on March 8th
2012).
49
For detailed explanations about Raghib’s preference, see Al-Suyûṭî, Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, 2:5.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
106
In his long and detailed tafsîr on 3:7, ‘Allâmah Ṭabâṭabâ’î tries to theorize the
passages that are muḥkam and mutashâbih in the Qur’ân. He explains different
definitions such as the definition of Ibn Taymiyyah, who believes that muḥkam is
exclusively used for those âyahs that talk about the attributes of God or the attributes of
the prophets. Ṭabâṭabâ’î also mentions Ibn ‘Abbâs’s definition according to which muḥkam
is what both believed and acted upon, and mutashâbih is what is believed but is not acted
upon. Ṭabâṭabâ’î criticises all those definitions and gives a short and simple yet practical
and clear definition for this Qur’ânic categorization. He writes:
The definition of muḥkam and mutashâbih must be looked for in the âyah
that initially presents this concept. What the âyah [3:7] presents here is
that there are some âyahs that -while having all the credibility of being an
âyah- lead to hesitation and doubt about their meaning. This doubt is
neither in their words, nor in the meanings of their words, and not even in
the relationship between those words and their meanings, but it dwells in
the fact that some of those meanings, even being very clear, cannot cohabit
with the clear meaning of another âyah that bears a certain and solid
message.50
To Ṭabâṭabâ’î, mutashâbih is recognizable by the doubt and hesitation between two or
more possible meanings that it causes to the listener who implicitly or explicity compares
with other Qur’ânic passages. To better explain his inter-textual definition, he writes:
“Mutashâbih causes a hesitation to its listener once he tries to understand what has been
recited. This hesitation must be challenged and examined by muḥkamât”51
and not only
by philological or morphological efforts. In other words, some Qur’ânic âyahs are
mutashâbih in their relationship to those that are muḥkam. So, it is not a binary
categorization such as cold and hot. Instead, there is an inter-dependency between
Qur’ânic âyahs such as the inter-dependency between pieces of a puzzle where every
piece presents a solid picture, but some pieces can present different pictures (like sea or
sky), and their “true” picture must be found by putting them beside those that are clear
50 Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, 3:40, available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-
mizan/ (consulted on March 10th
2012).
51
Ibid., 19.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
107
enough.52
2.3.5 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into nâsikh and mansûkh
Like the previous category, the concepts of nâsikh versus mansûkh have been initially
presented in the Qur’ân itself. From the very beginning of the revelation, there is a
reference that seems to refer to God’s provision in case the revelation would be forgotten
by the Prophet Muḥammad. Sûrah 87, which is among the first sûrahs revealed in Mecca,
discusses this point.53
Its âyahs 6 to 11 read:
إل ما شاء ٱلل ل تسىو قرئ ل إنه ر فى ونيس ر إن ۥ يعم ٱلجهر وما ي يسرىو ذ
شىو ويتجبا ٱلشقى ر من ي يذ رىو نفعت ٱلذ
We shall make thee read (O Muḥammad) so that thou shalt not forget.
Save that which Allah willeth. Lo! He knoweth the disclosed and that
which still is hidden; And We shall ease thy way unto the state of ease.
Therefore remind (men), for of use is the reminder. He will heed who
feareth, But the most hapless will flout it.54
These âyahs announce, with an authoritative tone, the Prophet’s “unforgetfulness” as a
52 Goldfeld cites a doctoral dissertation in which a challenging theory is presented. The author,
Muḥammad al-Sîd, tries to uphold “the existence of a clearly manifested hermeneutical system in the
Qur’ân itself.” Goldfeld writes:
[Sîd believes that] Three major themes, repeatedly emphasized in the Qur’ân, are the
exegetical method thereof, namely: ‘the understanding of God as He gives himself to be
understood’, ‘the understanding that He sent Muḥammad as He [had] sent apostles before
him’, and ‘the understanding that the Qur’ân is His verbatim Word and the embodiment
of His Will revealed to Muḥammad as He had revealed scriptures before.’ In other words
“if the real understanding of God, veracity of the Qur’ân and the apostleship of
Muḥammad is well established, the possibility of a hermeneutical problem on any lower
level (i.e. when one understands what the language communicates but is unable to take it),
is greatly diminished.” The Qur’ân shows that faith renders scepticism irrational. It is the
contention of al-Sid that this threefold Qur’ânic hermeneutics is the Muḥkam or univocal
constituent of the revelation through which the Mutashâbih or ambiguous constituent can
be understood.
Consciously or unconsciously, Sîd’s argument is somewhat a re-formulation of Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s definition of
muḥkam and mutashâbih. See Yeshayahu Goldfeld, “The Development of Theory on Qur’ânic Exegesis in
Islamic Scholarship,” 6-7.
53
Most mufassirûn consider this sûrah to be one of the first sûrahs revealed in Mecca. There is a debate
among them on the exact chronological place of this sûrah, but the debate is on the sûrah being the 7th
, the
8th
, or the 9th
. Muir considers it as the 9th
surah, but Nöldeke believes that it is the 15th
sûrah in the
chronology of the revelation.
54
Dr. Mohsin’s translation of this âyah renders more justice to its meaning. His translation of sa
nuqri’uka falâ tansâ illâ mâ shâ’a Allâh is: “We shall make you to recite (the Qur’an), so you (O
Muḥammad (SAW)) shall not forget (it), Except what Allah, may will.”
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
108
supra-human strength given to him by God, but they also predict forgetfulness regarding
the revelation pre-planned by God. It is only around the end of the revelation and in
Medina that two Qur’ânic âyahs (2:106 and 22:52) directly discuss the subject matter of
the abrogation, and give more information about God’s reason(s) for abrogating some of
his revelation.55
2:106 reads:
ها ا أو م ير م ب ما نسخ من ءاية أو نسها نأ ىو شىء قدير ألم تعم أن ٱلل
Such of our revelation as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we
bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah
is Able to do all things?
Here, two different ways of abrogating have been presented: first, abrogating by another
âyah while keeping the first âyah in the corpus of the Qur’ân and, second, abrogating by
forgetting an earlier âyah. The nature and the process of this kind of falling into oblivion
is not clear here. The âyah might allegorically mean that God “forgets” some âyahs in the
sense of “ignoring” them, ordering the Prophet to do the same. It might also mean that
God makes the Prophet forget some âyahs. If this latter is true, then this unconscious
forgetting needs to happen immediately after the revelation of those âyahs, because if this
is not so, once recited by the Prophet, they would be recorded in Muslims’ collective oral
and later written memories. In both cases of abrogating or forgetting, God promises that
the abrogated or forgotten âyahs will be replaced by similar or better âyahs.
The other âyah discussing the issue of the abrogation is 22.52. It reads:
ن ى أميته ـو يط ألقى ٱلش إا تمىو ول ول نبى إل من ر ا من قب قى وما أر ما ي ۦ يسخ ٱلل
تهۦ ـو ءاي ن ثم يحڪم ٱلل ـو يط يم حكيم ٱلش وٱلل
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited
(the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he
recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then
Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise.
This âyah is the source of the famous concept of “Satanic verses” in the Qur’ân. Many
55 Most mufassirûn consider the sûrah 2 to be among the last sûrahs revealed in Medina. There is a debate
among them on the exact chronological place of this sûrah, but the debate is on the sûrah being the 80th
,
84th
, 85th
, 86th
, 90th
or 91th
. Muir considers it as the 94th
sûrah but Nöldeke believes that it is the 91st sûrah
in the chronology of the revelation.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
109
mufassirûn have reported an incident happening in the first Meccan period of the
Prophet’s mission. Although there are several accounts reporting that incident, most of
them have Ibn Ka‘b as the first narrator. After mentioning its isnâd in detail, Ṭabarî
narrates the asbâb al-nuzûl of this âyah and writes:
The Messenger of Allâh, Allâh’s salutation and peace be upon him was
sitting in one of Quraysh’s assemblies wishing that Allâh does not send to
him something that makes his kinsmen and neighbours run away from
him. Meanwhile Allâh descended on him “By the Star when it setteth” [the
first âyah of the 53rd
sûrah] until “Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-
’Uzza And Manat, the third, the other?” [the 19th
and 20th
âyahs of the
same sûrah]. At this moment, Satan tempted him to recite the following
lines: “These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.”56
[The Prophet] recited them. Then he continued till he finished the
recitation of the whole sûrah. Then he prostrated and everybody prostrated
with him … This revelation made the Qurayshites happy. They said:
“Indeed, we learned that Allâh is the one who gives life and death. He is
the one who creates and nourishes. But also these goddesses of ours are
intercessors to Allâh. If you give them some credibility, we will be with
you.” The day was not ended yet that Gabriel, peace be upon him came to
the Prophet. Then, the Prophet presented the sûrah to the Archangel. When
he arrived to the two sentences thrown by Satan, Gabriel said: “I did not
bring these two to you.” So, the Prophet said: “I calumniated Allâh, and I
said about him what was not said to me.” So Gabriel brought him this
âyah: “And they indeed strove hard to beguile thee (Muḥammad) away
from that wherewith We have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other
than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.”
[17:73] until “then hadst thou found no helper against Us.” [The end of
17:75] This did not comfort the Prophet and he remained sad until the
following âyah was revealed to him: “Never sent We a messenger or a
prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed
(opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah
abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His
revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise.” Those Muslim immigrants who were
in Habasha (Ethiopia today] heard that all people of Mecca embraced
Islam. They came back to their tribes and said: “We love them more [than
Christians in Habasha], then they found out that Meccan people have
turned on their idolatry as soon as God has abrogated what Satan had
threw.57
56 Literally gharâniq means white swans with exalted necks. This was a jâhili expression for admiring the
beauty and the nobleness of a woman.
57
Ṭabarî does not mention how long it takes for the Satanic Verses to be abrogated. Also, although there
are several narratives about this incident, none of them gives us more information about the chronology and
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
110
It is clear that in Ṭabarî’s tafsîr, the Prophet cannot recognize the change neither in the
voice, nor in the rhetoric style of the intermediary. Also some other critical ironies exist
in the narrative. For example, the Archangel who is the mediator for the revelation does
not react to the Prophet’s first recitation in front of the crowd and waits for a second
recitation in private. The Prophet remains sad until he is informed that this has happened
before to other prophets. One might ask: From a psychological point of view, what kind
of relief comes with knowing that others have committed the same terrible mistake?
Probably the best and the clearest explanation about the theory of naskh
(abrogation) in the Qur’ân can be read in John Burton’s article on 2:106. He gives a short
yet valid abstract of highly developed theories of naskh within 14 centuries of tafsîr. He
writes:
The greatest imaginable confusion reigns as to the definition of the term
naskh and as to its supposed meaning(s). For that reason, it may be
convenient first to set out the following formulae which represent the
classical theories of naskh. There are, in fact, two such theories. 1. One
theory acknowledges two modes of naskh: (i) naskh al-ḥukm wal-tilâwa:
naskh of both wording and ruling. The formula can refer only to the
Qur’ân. Material once allegedly revealed to the Prophet as to form part of
the Qur’ân has been omitted from the texts collected into the muṣḥaf. This
use of the term naskh may most conveniently be translated suppression.
(ii) naskh al-ḥukm dûna al-tilâwa: the naskh of the ruling only. The form
of words in which the ruling is couched remains, either in the texts of the
Qur’ân or in those of the Sunna. Retaining the same translation of the term
naskh used above, the present formula would allude to the suppression of
the ruling of the earlier of two documents, the wording of the earlier text
surviving in the sources alongside the wording of the later text whose
ruling is “seen” to have replaced the earlier ruling. It might, however, be
less confusing to use as our translation of naskh in this second formula the
term “supersession”. 2. Only a minority of scholars acknowledge a second
theory of naskh which adds to the two above formulae a third: naskh al-
tilâwa dûna al-ḥukm: the naskh of the wording only.58
the length of events. To read the full version of Ṭabarî’s narrative, see Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl
al-Qur’ân, under 22:52, available online at www.almeshkat.net (consulted on March 12th
2012).
58
John Burton, “The Exegesis of Q. 2:106 and the Islamic Theories of Naskh: Mâ Nansakh Min Âya aw
Nansâhâ Na‘ṭi bi Khayrin Minhâ aw Mithlihâ.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, vol. 48, No. 3 (1985): 452-469 (p. 452). Although very debatable, this third theory
or formula has had important impacts on several aspects of Muslims’ social life, including unsurprisingly
man-woman relationship as well as the relationship between Muslims and Ahl-al Kitâb. For the first aspect,
Burton gives the example of adultery. Right after briefly mentioning the above-mentioned citation, he adds:
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
111
Knowing that in many Qur’ânic instances of nâsikh and mansûkh, earthly circumstances
and human contexts are probably behind the abrogation/change, one might conclude that
the contextualisation of Qur’ânic âyahs is not only permissible, but also necessary for a
re-understanding of the Qur’ân in the contemporary context of a fast changing world. An
example of how and to what extent human context (in this case, the human sexual and
physical tolerance) can intervene with the divine order and “abrogate” or “change” it can
be found in 2:187. It reads:
كم ث إلىو نسا يام ٱلر لڪم لية ٱلص تم هن لباس لكم وأنتم لباس لهن أح أنڪم م ٱلل
كم فا يكم و تانون أنفسڪم تا شروهن وٱبتغوا ت ـو ن ب ـو لكم ٱلـ وا وٱشربوا ما ڪتب ٱلل و
ود من ٱلفجر يط ٱل يط ٱلبيض من ٱل حتىو يتبين لكم ٱل يام إلى ٱلي وا ٱلص شروهن ثم أتم ـو ول تب
جد ـو كفون ى ٱلمس ـو ل تقربوها ت وأنتم حدود ٱلل تهۦ لاس لعهم يتقون ـو ءاي يبي ن ٱلل ذتل
It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast.
They are raiment for you and ye are raiment for them. Allah is Aware that
ye were deceiving yourselves in this respect and He hath turned in mercy
toward you and relieved you. So hold intercourse with them and seek that
which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread
becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn. Then strictly
observe the fast till nightfall and touch them not, but be at your devotions
in the mosques. These are the limits imposed by Allah, so approach them
not. Thus Allah expoundeth His revelation to mankind that they may ward
off (evil).
2.3.6 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into ‘aâm and khâṣṣ
Despite its importance, this category has been ignored by most Western scholars.59
One
The “classic” instance of this mode of naskh relates to the Islamic penalty for adultery-death by
stoning-derived, according to some, from a so-called stoning- “verse”. That no such “verse” is to
be found in the muṣḥaf led to the rejection of the stoning penalty by a minority who insisted on the
penalty that is to be found at Q. 24 2-one hundred strokes of the lash. The majority of the fuqahâ’,
however, including the founders of the four surviving madhâhib, acknowledged the stoning
penalty, merely differing as to which had been its source, Qur’ân or Sunna. Malikis and Hanafis
are content to attribute the stoning to the Sunna; Shafi’i and, following him, Aḥmad, traced it, for
technical source-theory reasons, to the Qur’ân. The third formula, naskh al-tilâwa dûna al-ḥukm,
thus serves as the hallmark of the minority spoken of above. (p.452)
An example for the relationship between Muslims and ahl al-kitâb can be found in the existence of a clear
Qur’ânic permission, found in 5:5, that allows Muslims to eat from ahl al-kitâb’s food and to let them eat
from Muslims’ food, while a majority of fuqahâ have rejected the Christians’ and Jews’ slaughtering
methods, thereby refusing to consider their food as ḥalâl or eatable for Muslims.
59
One might think that compared to other categorizations of the Qur’ânic text, this one is unworthy to be
mentioned. A quick glance at written works of some Muslim feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud or
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
112
might find very little on this subject matter, and those little references are surprisingly
filled with odd mistakes.60
There is no consensus among mufassirûn about the definition
of this categorization of the Qur’ânic text, specifically the definition of al-khâṣṣ.
Different mufassirûn have mentioned different and numerous subcategories for both ‘aâm
(general or generic) and khâṣṣ (particular or specific).61
A simplified definition would be
as following: ‘aâm is when a Qur’ânic âyah states a generic statement about all examples
of its subject matter or issues, an order with a general applicability to all its subjects.
Ibn Quddâma (541-620H) mentions five subcategories for ‘aâm. According to
him, an âyah is ‘aâm when one or more of the five following terms appear in it: 1) an ism
Asma Barlas, reveals how to them, this categorization is at the basis of the “patriarchal readings of the
Qur’ân,” taking khâṣṣ for ‘aâm. Asma Barlas writes:
Patriarchal readings of the Qur’ân can be faulted not only for distorting our idea of God -
by displacing onto God the idea of sexual partisanship and thus of sexism and even
misogyny - but also for other methodological and conceptual problems.
Methodologically, such readings tend to decontextualise the Qur’ân’s teachings by
rendering words, phrases, and âyât in isolation from one another and without attention to
language, grammar, and syntax, and/or by generalising specific Qur’ânic injunctions.
See Asma Barlas, “The Qur’ân and Hermeneutics: Reading the Qur’ân’s Opposition to Patriarchy.” Journal
of Qur’ânic Studies, vol. 3, No. 2 (2001): 15-38.
60
Goldfeld argues that this categorisation might have been inherited from the Jewish tradition of
interpretation. By believing so, he narrows down the borders of “human wisdom” to the achievements of
the Jewish tradition. It is not difficult to find a general statement in any text (sacred or not), followed by
some exceptions or particularities. The Arabic nomination, in this case, is so far from the Hebrew terms
used to refer to the same concept that it requires a stretch of the imagination to see a link between those
terms in Hebrew and Arabic. Goldfeld writes:
khâṣṣ wa ’Amm or “particular” and “general” seems to have been shaped after Perat u-
Kelal or “particular” and “general” of Hillel 5 and/or Rabbi Yishma ’el 4-11 (or Tyconius
4), unless these rules are a result of original investigation formulated in borrowed terms
from the intercultural vocabulary of that period.
See Goldfeld, “The Development of Theory on Qur’ânic Exegesis in Islamic Scholarship,” 24-5.
McAuliffe’s short explanation leads to confusion. She writes: “Some verses are deemed to be of general
applicability while others are understood to apply only to specific circumstances (‘aâm/khâṣṣ).” She mixes
between ‘aâm and khâṣṣ as categories of Qur’ânic âyahs and the same concepts/terms in asbâb al-nuzûl. In
fact, “the general applicability” is the right definition for ‘aâm in the Qur’ân, but “specific circumstances”
is the right explanation for khâṣṣ in asbâb al-nuzûl. See McAuliffe, “The Persistent Power of the Qur’ân,”
343.
61
Some Muslim scholars have, at least in part, rejected this categorization. The most detailed refusal that I
found can be read in Madhkarat Uṣûl al-Fiqh ‘alâ Rawḍat al-Nâẓir li al-‘Allâma ibn Quddâma (pp. 310-
16) written by Muḥammad al-Amîn al-Shanqîṭî (d. 1393H). See Muḥammad al-Amîn al-Shanqîṭî,
Madhkarat Uṣûl al-Fiqh ‘alâ Rawḍat al-Nâẓir li al-‘Allâma ibn Quddâma. Jaddah: Dâr ‘Âlam al-Fawâ’id,
1426H, available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=7007 (consulted on April 25th
2012).
See also Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-Munîr written by Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Futûḥî also known as Ibn Najjâr
(898-728H). See Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Futûḥî, Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-Munîr. 2nd
ed. 4 vols. Riyadh:
Maktabat ‘Abikân, 1997 (vol. 3, p. 119).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
113
al-‘urf (common noun) having the prefix of al (the definite article in Arabic). This
category has three subcategories: first, when the common noun is a lafẓ al-jumû‘ (plural
noun) such as “the pagans” or “those who believe,” second, when the common noun is a
ism al-jins (singular term referring to a kind or genus) such as “the water” or “the
animal,” third, when the common noun is a lafẓ wâḥid (individual noun referring to all
examples of its meaning) such as “the thief” or “the guilty”; 2) a common verbal noun
such as “him who believeth” or “whoso doeth an ill-deed”;62
3) a lafẓ ‘aâm muḍâf ilâ
ma‘rifa (common noun annexed to a definite noun) such as “the spouse of zayd”; 4) the
two terms of kull (every) and jamî‘ (all or all together) such as “every soul”; 5) al-nakara
fî siyâq al-nafy (the usage of an indefinite noun in a negative tense) such as the term
“consort” in “there is for Him no consort.”63
According to Ibn Quddâma, whenever at
least one of the above-mentioned categories appears in an âyah, the announcement or the
order includes all the examples and instances of the used common noun and/or the term.64
khâṣṣ is when a Qur’ânic âyah makes an exception or excludes some specific
instances of an already announced generic statement and/or general order. As a textual
phenomenon, khâṣṣ can happen in the same âyah with ‘aâm or by an âyah revealed later,
the first kind called al-khâṣṣ al-muttaṣil (connected khâṣṣ), and the second called al-
khâṣṣ al-munfaṣil (disconnected khâṣṣ). While examples of this categorization are
numerous in the Qur’ân down the centuries, the concept of ‘aâm and khâṣṣ has caused
many debates not only between those mutikallimûn who have accepted it and those who
have, at least partly, rejected it, but also among the believers in this categorization. One
of the main fronts of the debate among those who have accepted it is on the nature of this
textual phenomenon. Muslim scholars have asked themselves if khâṣṣ reveals a second
determination of God contrary to his first will (‘aâm) or if ‘aâm and khâṣṣ must be
considered, from the very beginning of ‘aâm, as one single will announced in two parts.
62 Although Ibn Quddâma calls it adawât al-sharṭ (literary conditional tools), I can neither understand the
conditional aspect of this subcategory, nor find an explanation for this nomination. He himself does not
present any reason for his choice of name.
63
The Qur’ân 6:101.
64
See Abu Muḥammad Abdullâh Muḥammad ibn Quddâma al-Muqaddasî, Rawḍat al-Nâẓir wa Jannat
al-Manâẓir. Riyadh: Jâmi‘at al-Imâm Muḥammad b. Su‘ûd, 1399H, under chapter 5. E-published by
maktabat al-Mishkât al-Islâmiyyah at http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=2120&cat=36
(consulted on April 25th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
114
In other words, if the unchanging God “can” change his mind, relinquish a precedent
statement, and abandon a part of his own order; or ‘aâm is a part of a more detailed order
that would have been soon later completed with khâṣṣ. A Qur’ânic example helps to
understand better the complexity of this concept, and its importance. 2:255 reads:
ه إل هو ٱلحى ٱلقيوم ـو ل إل ول نوم ل تأخذه ٱللة وما ى ٱلرض له ۥ وت ـو م من ا ۥ ما ى ٱلس
ده فهم يعم ما بين أيدي ۥ إل بإنهۦ ٱلذى يشفع مهۦ إل بما شاء هم وما خ ن ول يحيطون بشىء م
وٱلرض وت ـو م يه ٱلس ر ع وهو ٱلعى ٱلعظيم ۥ حفظهما ول يـ وده و
Allah! There is no God save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber
nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the
heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with
Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that
which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge
save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He
is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.
In this âyah, the statement of “they [all his creatures including humankind] encompass
nothing of His knowledge” has been excepted by “save what He will.” This âyah is
among Qur’ânic âyahs that al-ishrâqiyyûn (the adherents of the school of ishrâq or
illumination) have used to present and promote the idea of: to achieve “knowledge” (or
wisdom) one must pray God and keep asking Him to “want” to illuminate him/her.
2.3.7 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into indhâr and tabshîr
This category has been accepted by all mufassirûn, and they are unanimous on the
definitions of its terms. indhâr, the gerund of andhara , is when a Qur’ânic âyah warns
its readership about a suffering (often presented as a punishment), and tabshîr, the
present participle of bashara (giving glad tidings), is when an âyah brings glad tidings to
its readership (mostly presented as a reward).65
In his tafsîr on 2:119, Zamakhsharî (467-
65 Despite the consensus on the definitions of indhâr and tabshîr, two Qur’ânic âyahs use the term tabshîr
(both in imperative form) in the sense of indhâr. 4:138 reads: “Bear unto the hypocrites the tidings that for
them there is a painful doom”; and 9:3 reads: “And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all
men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His
messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape
Allah. Give tidings (O Muḥammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.” I verified many tafâsîr,
including the works of Ṭabarî, Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Mâwardî, Râzî, Qurṭubî, Suyûṭî, Jazâ’irî, Zamakhsharî, Makkî
ibn abi Ṭâlib, and Ibn Kathîr. To my surprise, none of them mentions anything about these two
“exceptional” and “controversial” Qur’ânic usages of the term.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
115
538H) explains that prophets cannot oblige people to believe or to accept their message.
This is the reason why indhâr and tabshîr are the two most essential prophetic tools for
the accomplishment of the prophetic mission.66
The contemporary Muslim thinker
Mortezâ Motahharî (1920-1979C.E.) mentions that indhâr “pushes away” from evil and
ill-doing, and tabshîr “pulls towards” God and righteousness. These dual complementary
acts of “pushing away” and “pulling towards” make a vertical line with God and heaven
up at one end, and Satan and hell down at the other end. Human beings then move up and
down that line towards one end or the other.67
2.4 Some Implications of Subdividing the Qur’ân68
Jane McAuliffe believes that Muslim scholars’ effort to “create binary categories” has
been their common strategy to stabilize the inherited al-tafsîr by the support of structural
analysis. She writes:
From the earliest Islamic centuries, Muslim scholars have combined this
production of multivolume commentaries with an effort to analyze and to
classify the Qur’ânic text in multiple ways. They have used terminology
drawn from within the text itself, and from beyond it, to create binary
categories. For example, certain verses are labeled “clear” while others are
consigned to the category of “ambiguous” (muḥkam/mutashâbih). Some
verses are deemed to be of general applicability while others are
66 See Abu al-Qâsim Maḥmûd b. ‘Umar al-khawârizmi al-Zamakhsharî, Tafsîr al-Kashshâf. 6 vols.
Riyadh: Maktabat ‘Abikân, 1998 (vol. 1, p.182), available online at
http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194 (consulted on April 25th
2012).
67
Abbâs Ali Shâmelî, “Jâygâh va Naqsh-e Enzâr va Tabshir dar Nezâm-e Tarbyati-ye Payâmbarân.”
Ma‘refat, No. 33, no date, available online at http://marifat.nashriyat.ir/node/1139 (consulted on April 25th
2012).
68
Before discussing the implications of subdividing the Qur’ân, it is important to mention that the
subdivisions of the Qur’ân are not limited to what has been discussed in this thesis. As a matter of fact,
beside all the above-mentioned “popular” categorizations, there are many other classifications that are also
commonly accepted by most Islamic schools or traditions, but they are less useful to the arguments of this
thesis. Some of them are: al-mumtaḥinât meaning examiners (sûrahs 32, 48, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 68, 71, 72); alam (seven sûrahs that start with the mysterious letters of alif, lâm, mîm); musabbaḥât
meaning words to praise the God (sûrahs 17, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 87); hawâmîm (seven sûrahs that start with
the mysterious letters of hâ, mîm); alr (six sûrahs that start with the mysterious letters of alif, lâm, râ’);
ḥamd (five sûrahs that start with the word al-ḥamd); al-iṭâq meaning old ones (sûrahs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21);
‘azâyem (four sûrahs that include an âyah or âyahs with obligatory prostration); qul (four sûrahs starting
with the word qul meaning say); ṭawâsîn (three sûrahs that start with the mysterious letters of ṭâ, sîn or ṭâ,
sîn, mîm); al-zahrâwân meaning two flowers (sûrahs 2 and 3); qarinatayn meaning two symmetrical
(surahs) (sûrahs 8 and 9); al-mu‘awadhatayn meaning two refuges (the last two sûrahs of the Qur’ân).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
116
understood to apply only to specific circumstances (‘âmm/khâṣṣ). Yet
another form of binary classification is based on the notion that there are
later passages in the Qur’ân that abrogate verses revealed earlier. Building
category upon category, these medieval Muslim minds developed a highly
sophisticated form of structural analysis that stabilized the inherently
amorphous activity of interpretation. Throwing this terminological grid
over the Qur’ân has channelled exegetical energy toward an almost
microscopic examination of the text, an effort and an attitude that further
fortify the aura of unassailable textual authority that surrounds this
scripture.69
While agreeing with her on some implications of those categorizations (binary or not),
one cannot deny the fact that in some cases, such as in the case of nâsikh and mansûkh,
the Qur’ânic message is so clear that the act of categorization happens in and by the
original text itself before any “activity of interpretation” be inherited. In this regard, with
the simplest lecture of the Qur’ân, any mind, whether “medieval Muslim” or “modern
Western” will conclude that the text is calling to a meticulous examination of its âyahs in
order to classify its messages according to the announced categories of nâsikh and
mansûkh.70
69 McAuliffe, “The Persistent Power of the Qur’ân,” 343.
70
McAuliffe gives the impression that before the medieval age, al-tafsîr was an amorphous
phenomenon/activity. Knowing that, right after the death of the Prophet, we have reports about debates
among different “schools” of tafsîr, one might conclude that from the very beginning of its emergence, al-
tafsîr had a structure with clear implications leading to different degrees of textual authority. As an
example, to most scholars, Ibn ‘Abbâs followed the Jewish/Christian methods of exegesis and succeeded to
establish his own “school” of tafsîr upon that inheritance. On this point, Goldfeld writes:
The oldest Jewish commentators ... who preceded the time of methodology in the
implementation of certain rules, used to explain the text by parallels, in accordance with
the rule that the Tora is to be explained by the Tora, as well as by reference to accepted
speech and by comparison to foreign languages … The oldest Jewish Bible explanations
… were initially having reference to legal matters only derived from the Bible (Halakha),
literary-historical subjects (Haggada) being rather more resistant to the changes of time
and therefore in less frequent need of updating. This too happened to Islamic precepts of
interpretation: The first stage of development of Muslim theory on Qur’ânic exegesis, the
four precepts of Ibn ‘Abbas, seem to refer to the understanding of the legal aspects only
of the Qur’ân. The world of Ibn ‘Abbâs and his contemporaries was Arabia, Arabism and
Arabic. The whole universe was viewed through this Arabocentric prism, a sense for
history and introspective reasoning not having yet taken account of the world outside. The
second and third stages of development of Muslim theory on exegesis, during the age of
the Tabi’iun and their disciples, like Muqatil and his generation, refer also to the
historical aspect of the Qur’ân.
See Goldfeld, “The Development of Theory on Qur’ânic Exegesis in Islamic Scholarship,” 8-9. Goldfeld’s
argument clearly shows that, contrary to what McAuliffe believes, al-tafsîr had already experienced an
evolution of its theories before the end of the 8th
century.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
117
From an internal interpretation viewpoint, one of the main and common goals of
mufassirûn studying the above-mentioned categorizations and trying to master their
technics has been to achieve a reliable certainty about the meaning of Qur’ânic âyahs. To
mufassirûn, Qur’ânic âyahs do not simply hold their independent meanings presenting
divine messages. They interact by explaining, interpreting, clarifying, and
complementing each other. Those interactions range from confirming and centralizing to
marginalizing and even abrogating.71
Some of the above-mentioned categorizations, by
nature, make connections between the “divine” and the “earthly.” Those connections, in
turn, are important steps towards the contextualization of Qur’ânic themes, messages, and
orders. In a way, they are powerful hermeneutical efforts to study the text through
invisible threads of connection between its particles called âyahs with earthly matters
such as weather, place, time, etc.
From an external interpretation perspective, the theorization of different Qur’ânic
categories has undeniably helped mufassirûn and fuqahâ to collaborate with Muslim
rulers, and to “handle the situation” in different conflicting socio-political contexts. In
fact, such a collaboration has only become possible by maneuvering the tafsîr of
concerned Qur’ânic âyahs and finding new meanings for the Words of God. In some
cases, these hermeneutical tools have helped the legitimization of the Islamic authority or
the stabilization of the power in conquered territories. In some other cases, and after
losing the conquered territories, they have helped create different understandings of
71 A good example of the importance of these studies, and their implications in Muslims’ everyday life, is
the Qur’ânic order about alcohol. Five Qur’ânic âyahs discuss this issue. According to all mufassirûn, those
âyahs must be read and understood in the following order, resulting in the strict banning of alcohol. It is
enough to invert that order to find that the same âyahs will clearly mean that drinking alcohol is a joy of
life permitted by God: A) “And of the fruits of the date-palm, and grapes, whence ye derive strong drink
and (also) good nourishment. Lo! Therein is indeed a portent for people who have sense.” (16:67); B)
“They question thee about strong drink and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and (some) utility
for men; but the sin of them is greater than their usefulness. And they ask thee what they ought to spend.
Say: that which is superfluous. Thus Allah maketh plain to you (His) revelations, that haply ye may
reflect.” (2:219); C) “O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that
which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if
ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not
water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign,
Forgiving.” (4:43); D) and E) “O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining
arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed. Satan seeketh
only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink and games of chance, and to turn you
from remembrance of Allah and from (His) worship. Will ye then have done?” (5:90-1).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
118
God’s order asking Muslims to evacuate their homes, and offering a sense of
“emigration” to what one might call “running away.”
As an example for the first above-mentioned instances, Hussein Ali Agrama gives
a very good example of fatwas contributing to the establishment of an ethical authority
within Muslim societies. While analysing fatwas as “instrument[s] of Islamic doctrinal
change and reform, as bridging the constant gap between a settled doctrinal past and a
future of continual novelty,”72
he writes:
To take just one example: Islamic scholars debated for several centuries
(up until the 8th) the question of how, and whether, acts enacted before the
arrival of Qur’ânic revelation could be categorized under the rubrics
provided by it. Questions about retroactive application would certainly
make sense after the initial founding and early expansion of Islam. Under
the temporal assumptions commonly associated with a modern historicity,
however, it is hard to see why such a debate would continue on for so
many centuries afterward. It seems quite the reverse of today’s Islamic
debates, which arose only after the 18th century, about how and whether
the revelation and its categories apply to acts, especially modern ones,
enacted after it. Kevin Reinhart (1995), who discusses the ancient debate
extensively, argues that it was a means for taking positions on
controversial issues within Islamic tradition that could not be approached
directly.73
As an example for the second above-mentioned instance, Jean-Pierre Molénat studies “le
problème de la permanence des musulmans dans les territoires conquis par les
chrétiens”74
and reveals how a new understanding of the Qur’ânic âyahs helped fuqahâ to
find a solution for the unhappy lives of Muslims living now under Christian rulers. He
writes:
Le départ des musulmans des zones contrôlées par les chrétiens est
conforme aux versets du Coran établissant l’obligation d’“émigrer”
(hâgara), dans les Sourates IV, 97-100, et VIII, 72-75 … Mais entre le
précepte, formulé par la parole de Dieu lui-même, et en tant que tel
intangible, et son application concrète, il existe nécessairement la
médiation d’une casuistique (une “étude des cas”), qui ouvre la porte à
72 Hussein Ali Agrama, “Ethics, tradition, authority: Toward an anthropology of the fatwa.” American
Ethnologist, vol. 37, Issue 1 (2010): 2-18 (p. 2).
73
Ibid., 8-9.
74
This is, in part, the title of his article cited further.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
119
interprétations qui peuvent diverger.75
2.5 The Theory of Five Layers of Meaning or the Soul of the Text
Knowing different categories of the Qur’ân, and understanding the internal power
dynamic of the Qur’ânic text can help us going towards an understanding of what I call
“the soul of the text” or “the fifth layer of the meaning.” I believe that, at least for texto-
centric religions, this fifth layer, as I will explain it further, is the core foundation of
religion as a sui generis phenomenon.76
In other words, the sui generis nature of religion,
if we accept such a claim about religion, comes, in part, from the sui generis nature of the
relationship between its sacred oral and/or written text/revelation with its audience.
Consequently, going from “understanding” the text, to “comprehending” the text or as
Northrop Frye calls it from “the knowledge about” the text to “the knowledge of” the text
means coming as close as possible to the “experience” of the text (in our case the Qur’ân)
as it has first been experienced by its initial audience, and is experienced again and again
in an immense variety of ways by its later adherents (in our case Muslims). These
experiences are way beyond the literal meaning(s) of words or verses as found in a
dictionary. To me, that “soul of the text” surpasses the vocabulary sense or the first layer
of the meaning. It also exceeds those nuances in meaning coming from al-ṣarf or the
grammatical aspect of the word as explained in grammar books. This latter forms what I
call “the second layer of the meaning.” It surpasses the third layer of the meaning that
comes from al-naḥw or the role and the place of the word in the sentence or the
75 Jean-Pierre Molénat, “Le problème de la permanence des musulmans dans les territoires conquis par
les chrétiens, du point de vue de la loi islamique.” Arabica, T. 48, Fasc. 3 (2001): 393-4.
76
Much has been written on the question of religion being or not a sui generis phenomenon. Daniel L.
Pals argues that since the emergence of Religious Studies as a “formal academic discipline,” the question of
religion being a sui generis phenomenon has caused debates among experts in this interdisciplinary field.
At the beginning of his article, he cites Mircae Eliade’s famous theory, and writes:
In one way or another each [phenomenologist of religion] has been inclined to say, with
Eliade, that “a religious phenomenon will only be recognized as such if it is grasped at its
own level, that is to say, if it is studied as something religious. To try to grasp the essence
of such a phenomenon by means of ... any other study is false; it misses the one unique
and irreducible element in it.” … On such a view the sui generis and irreducible character
of religion is crucial to proper understanding.
Then he presents the arguments of opponents, criticises them and convincingly concludes: “Is religion then
entitled to designation as a sui generis phenomenon? Absolutely, it would seem, if it is conceived in the
same heuristic terms that apply to other disciplines and if it is employed as an axiomatic guide for
research.” See Daniel L. Pals, “Is Religion a Sui Generis Phenomenon?” Journal of the American Academy
of Religion, vol. 55, No. 2 (Summer 1987): 259-282 (pp. 260, 279).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
120
syntactical aspect of the word. Finally, it goes farther than the nuances coming from the
beauty of the word or its relationship with the literary genre of the text, which I call “the
forth layer of meaning.” It rather mirrors the passion, the desire, the fear, the hope, the
rational and/or emotional acceptance that words alone or together can create in their
audience. I call this layer of the meaning, “the soul of the word,” or “the soul of the text.”
This layer is what Elizabeth Struthers Malbon suggests as the ultimate purpose of
hermeneutics. She puts an emphasis on the Gadamerian concept of “existential
understanding” used in Richard Palmer’s work, and makes a distinction between
exegetical meaning (Biblical exegesis in her case), and hermeneutical meaning. She
writes:
The distinction I see between biblical exegesis and existential
understanding is comparable to the distinction Palmer observes “between
the moment of understanding an object in terms of itself and the moment
of seeing the existential meaning of the object for one’s own life and
future”. While the most traditional definition of hermeneutics is probably
“the theory of interpretation,” the most traditional goal of hermeneuticists
in the field of religion throughout the long history of hermeneutics is
probably biblical exegesis. By the opening of the nineteenth century, as
Achtemeier notes, the terms "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" were often
used interchangeably (Achtemeier:14). However, in the twentieth century -
to a certain extent with Bultmann and more fully with the new
hermeneutic- the goal of biblical exegesis has been overwhelmed by the
insistent emphasis on existential understanding, on biblical exegesis pro
nobis, pro me. As John Cobb notes: “In the new hermeneutic what is
interpreted is ultimately and decisively the existence of the hearer of the
proclamation. The text, rather than being the object of interpretation, as
with Bultmann, becomes an aid in the interpretation of present existence”
(Cobb:229-80; cf. Robinson:52 and McKnight:77-78).77
This viewpoint is very close to how Ṭabâṭabâ’î sees ta’wîl and the distinction that he
makes between ta’wîl and tafsîr. As mentioned before, he believes that the result of ta’wîl
“is not [achieving] a sort of meaning of the word; it [rather] is a real fact that is too
sublime for words.”78
In other words, this fifth layer of meaning is not in the word and/or
the text. It rather dwells in its reader/listener. What the word does is to trigger a capacity
77 Struthers Malbon, Elizabeth. “Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Contextual Meaning.” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, vol. 51, No. 2 (June 1983): 207-230 (p. 215).
78
Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, “The Concept of al-Ta’wil in the Qur’an.” The Message of
Thaqalayn, vol. 2, (1995): 21-40.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
121
in its audience to find desire, fear, hope, love, etc. in himself or herself.
I believe that as any other text, sacred or non-sacred, the Qur’ân and its sûrahs,
âyahs and words possess these five layers of meaning. The first four layers are of interest
for exegesis, in our case tafsîr, but the last one is what the new hermeneutics is seeking to
find in the word/text. The reader reads it. The listener listens to it. By doing so, he/she
creates a personal relationship with the word/text. This personal relationship (superficial
or deep) immediately leads to a personal perception (clear or vague) of the meaning that
already dwells in his/her thoughts and feelings (common with others or not), and which is
rooted in his/her experiences, capacities, skills, and life.79
This layer of the meaning is
what I call “the soul of the word.” Let me give two examples. Dog is a three letter
English word. The online Oxford dictionary has a long page on the meaning of this word.
As the first meaning, one can read: “a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically
has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractile claws, and a barking, howling, or
whining voice.”80
This is what I call the first layer of the meaning. Then the grammar
nuances the meaning. Dog is a noun. It can become the subject of a verb such as “the dog
chased me.” Here the word “dog” does not only refer to “a domesticated carnivorous
mammal … [with] a long snout, [and] an acute sense of smell.” It refers to a moving
animal. Here we have movement, and the movement is not only in the verb; it also is in
the subject of the verb. Here, our three letter word is an animal that runs, moves, and
chases. At the third level, we have the meaning coming from the syntactical aspect of the
term. There is a big difference between the dog in “The dog chased me,” and the same
dog in “I chased the dog.”81
The image, the mood, the function, and maybe even the size
of the dog in these two sentences might be understood differently. The fourth layer comes
from the choice of words around dog, as well as the beauty or the literary genre that alone
or together they represent. The same sentence could have been said differently: “The dog
chased after me,” or “A big black dog chased me down the street,” or “My uncle’s f* dog
79 This “immediate” is so fast that it is almost perceived as simultaneous.
80
Online Oxford Dictionary, available online at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dog?q=Dog
(consulted on February 21st 2012).
81
This example reminds me of the famous journalism aphorism by Alfred Harmsworth: “When a dog
bites a man, that is not news … But if a man bites a dog, that is news.” So the syntactical place of dog in
the sentence makes all the difference about its informational and commercial values. See Justin Kaplan,
Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. 16th
ed. Boston, London, and Toronto: Little, Brown, 1992 (p. 554).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
122
chased me away,” or even “A wild dog ran after me.” Each of these sentences more or
less present the same scene (a dog chasing a human), but the role, and the meaning of the
dog, as well as its relationship with “me” is not 100% the same. The following poem by
Lee Crowell includes the same word (dog), the same move (chasing), and the same
grammatical and syntactical role for the word dog (chasing me), but the meaning that it
represents is quite different from “The dog (or my dog) chased me.” Part of her poem is:
I busted loose from my chain today
busted loose
from my chain
my dog chased me up and down
up and down around suppertime
I’m gonna show my dog
I’m gonna lift my leg
gonna show him I can do more than beg
and he’ll whisper that he understands
I’m just a boy in a dog life world82
Here the meaning of the word “dog” in “my dog chased me up and down” is nuanced by
its literary genre and the choice of other words of the text all together representing a
child’s world.
In order not to complicate things, let’s go back to our simple sentence of “The dog
chased me.” To me, the fifth layer of the meaning of the term dog is not in this sentence
but in the personal experience of the reader. Someone who has ever chased a dog or has
been chased by a dog will understand it differently (always referring to his/her
experience) from someone who has never experienced such a thing (whether joyful or
dangerous). Someone who comes from a culture where dog is an impure and polluting
animal (like in most Muslim cultures) will understand dog in this sentence differently
from someone who has grown up with a dog as a member of his/her family. Even if all
readers of this sentence have had dogs and their dogs have chased them (once or more),
they do not share the same meaning and perception about the term dog in this sentence.
Some of them might see joy in the term dog, while others might find it saddening. After
reading it, one reader might go and buy a dog while another reader might become more
82 The full poem is available online at http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-dog-whisperer/ (consulted
on April 25th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
123
careful when walking on the streets.83
In an interesting experimental study on the aspects of meaning, Gail McKoon and
Roger Ratcliff do a series of six experiments to verify the “contextually relevant aspects
of meaning.” Their conclusion reveals how the meaning may vary from one literary
context to another, as well as to what extent the meaning can change according to the
reader’s past. In their conclusion, they claim:
The typical encoding specificity procedure involves words studied as cue-
target pairs, and testing of the targets for recognition and cued recall. The
major finding is that a large proportion of targets can be recalled even
though they cannot be recognized, so long as recall is in the context of the
cue originally studied with a target. For example, suppose the pair glue-
chair is studied: In the context of previously studied information (the cue
glue), chair may be recalled. But without that context, chair alone may not
be recognized as having been studied. Similarly, in our experiments, the
relevant aspect of meaning of tomatoes is more available than the
irrelevant aspect of meaning when the context is previously studied
information, but not when the context is general knowledge.
Encoding specificity is sometimes interpreted to mean encoding of
specific meanings (cf. Crowder, 1976). The meaning of chair presented
alone is assumed to be slightly different from the meaning of chair
presented in the context of the cue glue. The experiments reported here go
beyond the usual encoding specificity result in showing explicitly that
different aspects of meaning are encoded: the encoded meaning of
tomatoes is shown to be different in the context of a paragraph about the
color of tomatoes than in a context about the shape of tomatoes.84
Another very good example that everybody has experienced is the verb “to thank,” or
simply “thanks.” All of us have experienced it in both extremes of using it to make a
bothering person go away versus using it to present our deepest gratitude to someone.
Where exactly do those opposite meanings lie? Are they in the vocabulary sense of the
83 A very concrete example of this power of words beyond their basic meanings is the rhetoric serving
political objectives. For example, a glance at the emergence of the Nazi movement/ideology in the early
1930s under the leadership of Adolph Hitler (1889-1945) shows to what extent Hitler was capable of
penetrating that fifth layer of the meaning and use it to his own advantage. In his different speeches, his
rhetoric is filled with terms such as “glory,” “dignity,” “development,” and “hope.” These conceptual
terms, and many other great ones, however, lead to cruelty, war and genocide. See Kristy Maddux,
“Finding Comedy in Theology: A Hopeful Supplement to Kenneth Burke’s Logology.” Philosophy &
Rhetoric, vol. 39, Issue 3 (2006): 208-232 (p. 225).
84
Gail McKoon and Roger Ratcliff, “Contextually Relevant Aspects of Meaning.” Journal of
Experimenlal Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 14, No. 2 (1988): 331-343 (p. 342).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
124
term, in its grammatical or syntactical aspects or in its literary form? (We might say it in
an old fashioned or colloquial ways). Is the meaning the same in the oral form of the term
and its written form?85
Will the meaning be different if we use it in a speech-act versus
using it in a prose? Martin C. Richard has an interesting discussion about the speech-act
aspect of the Qur’ân and its impact on the hermeneutics of its messages. In his article
entitled Understanding the Qur’ân in Text and Context, he writes:
… the Quranic text in both its literary and oral forms constitutes a speech-
act situation which involves a speaker and addressee(s), and that what we
must attempt to discover are the rules that govern the various cultural
contexts in which such communication takes place. In most speech-act
situations, the speaker (writer of literary speech or utterer of oral speech)
and addressees are defined by historical circumstances that can be
described and analyzed by literary, historical, or sociolinguistic methods.
The case of sacred speech, however, poses certain problems that speech-
act theorists have not considered. At the base of the symbolic world views
of Muslims is a cosmology that sees Allâh (God) as the speaker and
humankind as the addressee. Thus, the oral/literary text of the Qur’ân
constitutes a lingua sacra that implies a symbolic, cosmological context of
meaning. I hold that understanding cosmology and the world views it
generates in different historical and cultural contexts is essential to
understanding Quranic modes of communication.86
If the act of understanding simple terms such as “dog” or “thanks” is so dependent on
their textual contexts, as well as on our diverse contexts (including history), and our
relationship to them involving our feelings and our états d’esprit, how can we make sure
that we can achieve a reliable and stable meaning for conceptual terms such as “right,”
“wrong,” “love,” “justice,” and “truth,” that are so basic to the formation of “faith,” as
well as generic figures (real, symbolic or illusive) such as “angels,” “Satan,” and of
course “God” that are so essential to our perception of the metaphysical universe.
85 As Kate Zebiri rightly mentions: “The oral character of the Qur’ân is another element that reinforces the
relevance of rhetorical criticism. Some Western scholars have recently drawn attention to this aspect of the
Qur’ân, not just in its origins but as a relevant ongoing factor in observing the impact of the Qur’ân on
Muslims’ lives.” For some of those works, she gives the following examples in her footnote: “E. G.
Robinson, Discovering the Qur’ân; W. Graham, ‘Qur’ân as Spoken Word: An Islamic Contribution to the
Understanding of Scripture’ in R.C. Martin (ed.); Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies (Tuscon:
University of Arizona Press, 1985).” See Kate Zebiri, “Towards a Rhetorical Criticism of the Qur’ân.”
Journal of Qur’ânic Studies, vol. 5, No. 2 (2003): 95-120 (pp. 97, 116).
86
Richard C. Martin, “Understanding the Qur’ân in Text and Context.” History of Religions, vol. 21, No.
4 (May 1982): 361-384 (p. 364).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
125
Therefore, the main goal and challenge of hermeneutics seems to be how to penetrate the
fifth layer of the meaning or the soul of the word/text, achieving the ability of “re-seeing”
it in the constantly changing light of coming and going contexts, and finding the capacity
of re-understanding the word/text over and over as it mirrors the same truth in different
bodies of meanings each and all shaped by its readers throughout time and space. The
Qur’ân calls this capacity al-fiṭra but does not limit it to the understanding of the
word/text.
The term fiṭra, from faṭara and meaning “to cleave” or to “knead,” appears
several times in the Qur’ân.87
Some Qur’ânic sûrahs start with an âyah having this term,
and sûrah 82 of the Qur’ân is called al-infiṭâr (literally “bursting apart or cleaving
asunder”).88
To define fiṭra as a quality that human is gifted with, most mufassirûn refer
to 30:30 in the Qur’ân. It reads:
ين ح لد اأقم وجهيا يف ٱلتى طر ٱلاس ٱلل طر ٱلل ل كن ل تبدي ـو ين ٱلقي م ول ٱلد تل
أڪر ٱلاس ل يعمون
So set thy purpose (O Muḥammad) for religion as a man by nature upright -
the nature (framed) of Allâh, in which He hath created man. There is no
altering (the laws of) Allâh’s creation. That is the right religion, but most
men know not.89
The âyah here clearly talks about a divine quality or nature (Allâh’s fiṭra) given to human
beings in the process of their creation. In his short tafsîr on 30:30, Ṭabarî narrates two
sources in which fiṭra simply means “Islam.” The first one, going back to Mujâhid,
briefly says that to Mujâhid Allâh’s fiṭra is Islam. The second one, narrated with two
isnâd, is a ḥadîth in which the companion of the Prophet, Mu‘âdh ibn Jabal, answers a
question asked by the other companion of the Prophet, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, and within
his answer, he interprets fiṭra as ikhlâs (lit. sincerity or truthfulness), and ‘Umar confirms
87 It appears under different verbal and none verbal forms in 6:14, 79 ; 11:51; 12:101; 14:10; 17:51; 19:90;
20:72; 21:56; 30:30 (twice); 35:1; 36:22; 39:46; 42:5, 11; 43:27; 82:1; 67:3; 73:18.
88
One of Allâh’s attributes mentioned and accepted by Ibn ‘Arabî is fâṭir al-samâwâti wa al-arḍ (Creator
of the heavens and the earth). However, although coming from the Qur’ân (i.e. 6:14; 12:101), most
mufassirûn have refused to include it in Allâh’s 99 attributes.
89
In this âyah, Pickthall translates fiṭra as “nature,” Yusuf Ali translates it as “pattern,” Dr Mohsin keeps
it in Arabic transliteration and adds in parenthesis “(i.e. Allâh’s Islamic Monotheism).”
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
126
his answer.90
In their tafâsîr on 30:30, most mufassirûn follow Ṭabarî.91
They claim that
Allâh has given to all human beings the capacity of recognizing that Islam is the “right
religion,” but “most men know not.” However, despite his inclusivist approach,
Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr on 30:30 neither cites, nor refers to any of what others have written. In
his detailed and long tafsîr on 30:30, Ṭabâṭabâ’î presents a meticulous argument about
how fiṭra means al-ijâd (creation or establishment) or al-ibdâ‘ (innovation). This is a
human quality given to all human beings by God, so they can find (turn their faces
towards) al-dîn, which is the path towards happiness in both the earthly and hereafter
lives.92
Ṭabâṭabâ’î argues that this common quality (fiṭra) does not contrast the existing
diversity in different societies and cultures. He insists that “spirit” (rûḥ) and “body”
(badan) are two possessions of each and every human, and they do not differ from one
person to another throughout cultures and traditions. So human’s bodily and spiritual
needs are also the same. Humans have always looked and keep looking for happiness,
and although roads towards its examples are numerous, the happiness, as the ultimate
conceptual goal of each and every human is always the same. In other words, al-dîn is
God’s path towards earthly and eternal happiness, and fiṭra is the human beings’ common
divine quality that enables them to see the horizon of happiness, so they can march
together towards it in both the individual and the collective aspects of their life. He
concludes:
90 See al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 30:30, available online at
www.almeshkat.net (consulted on May 29th
2012).
91
Al-Râzî’s tafsîr about fiṭra is even shorter than Ṭabarî’s. It does not add to our information. See Al-
Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 30:30, available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372
(consulted on June 12th
2012). Zamakhsharî narrates two aḥâdîth whithout any sanad. The first one is a
ḥadîth qudsî according to which all servants of God (human beings) are created as monotheists, but Satan
leads them astray from the right path. The second ḥadîth is from the Prophet saying that every child is born
Muslim, but his/her parents make him/her become Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian. See Al-Zamakhsharî,
Tafsîr al-Kashshâf, under 30:30, available online at http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194
(consulted on June 12th
2012). Ibn Kathîr narrates Zamakhsharî’s first ḥadîth, always without any sanad,
then cites several aḥadîh according to which fitrâ means Islam. See Ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr, under
30:30, available online at http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-8.html (consulted on June 12th
2012).
92
In his tafsîr on 18:51, Ṭabâṭabâ’î mentions that every creature has been created with a fiṭra, and every
creature is guided by God and through its fiṭra towards its perfection. Ṭabâṭabâ’î calls this divine guidance
as al-hidâyat al-‘âmmah (the common or general guidance), and God’s guidance for human being as al-
hidâyat al-khâṣṣah (the special or particular guidance). See Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân,
under 18:51, available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on June 13th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
127
If the meaning of human’s happiness was different from person to person,
any community with the goal of assuring its habitants’ happiness would
have not been established. If the meaning of happiness was diverse within
different spaces in which different nations live, it would necessarily place
the environment as the main basis of human’s social tradition meaning
religion, so human would necessarily become different kinds from place to
place. If the meaning of happiness was different from time to time,
meaning that eras and centuries were the main foundations of human’s
social tradition, each century would necessarily have a different nature
disconnected from what was inherited from fathers and what would be
passed to sons. In such a case, it was meaningless for the society to aim
any development, and it was impossible for the humanity to go from
deficiency towards perfection, because any collective move needs a steady
and invariable common sense of the road.
This [argument] does not aim to deny the fact that people, places
and eras have some impacts on the organisation [and the establishment] of
religious tradition, but it tries to prove that the religious tradition is
founded on a human’s capacity [fiṭra]: a unique truth which is invariable
and commonly shared by each and every individual throughout times and
spaces.93
While studying the Qur’ânic term ḥanîf, Frederick Denny gives a short explanation about
fiṭra in 30:30. His definition is very close to Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s interpretation of fiṭra in the
same âyah. Denny believes that despite the fact that the homo religiouso in the Qur’ân is
an “intentional creature,” “God has created [him with] a fiṭra, a natural tendency…”94
He
adds:
While in later Islamic theology much effort was expended to preserve
God’s sovereign will (mâshi’a) and guidance (hidâya), here in the
Qur’ânic record it seems that man is indeed able to subvert and repudiate
God’s fiṭra. The religion of Allâh is “natural” and archetypal, partaking of
his ṣibghah. God’s religion is marked by His ṣibghah, His “baptism”, and
God’s Baptism is best of all. The sense of purification in ṣibghah …
specifies some-thing of the quality of fiṭra in this connection.95
The quality of fiṭra enables human to “see” and “to hear” God’s âyahs (lit. signs), to
93 Surprisingly, here Ṭabâṭabâ’î does not mention any source, reference or ḥadîth for his theological
argument. See Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 30:30, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on March 10th
2012).
94
Frederick Mathewson Denny, “Some Religio-Communal Terms and Concepts in the Qur’ân.” Numen,
vol. 24, Fasc. 1 (April 1977): 26-59 (p. 32).
95
Ibid, 32-3. In a footnote to the first sentence of this paragraph, Denny writes: “For a lucid discussion of
this term see D. B. MacDonald, “Fiṭra,” Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition, s.v.”
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
128
achieve their true meanings, and to use them as “guidance” towards al-dîn (whatever it
means). The term âyah in both its singular and plural forms has been used hundreds of
times in the Qur’ân. Beside the Qur’ânic verses being âyât al-Allâh (the signs of God),
the list of other signs of God presented in the Qur’ân is long. It includes almost
everything: the Moon, the Sun, the earth, clouds, winds, rain, the miracles of all prophets,
Joseph and his brothers, Noah and those who survived with him, the survival of Moses
and his followers as well as the ruin of Pharaoh and his followers, Jesus and his mother
Mary, rivers, mountains, plants, fruits, life and death, the difference of day and night, the
human’s creation, and all creatures in the heavens and the earth.96
In a way, the Qur’ân’s
hermeneutical approach is very close to the post-modern way of defining “the text.”
Everything in this world can be considered as a text, and can be “seen,” “reflected upon”
and “understood” as a sign pointing towards the same unique and ultimate truth.
Meanwhile, to the Qur’ân, the Qur’ânic âyahs have an undeniable supremacy in their
power of guidance compared to any other sign. That is why accessing the soul of the text
by penetrating the fifth layer of meaning of Qur’ânic âyahs becomes so essential to any
hermeneutical effort aiming to achieve a new rereading of the Qur’ân. The following
category is a contribution to such an effort.
2.6 The Subdivision of Qur’ânic âyahs into nabawî and rasûlî or The Theory of
Double Messages of the Qur’ân97
In 2006, while working on some Qur’ânic âyahs for a small project, the idea of an
ignored but important subdivision of the Qur’ânic text classifying its âyahs under two
96 For some examples, see 3:190; 10:6; 12:7; 17:101; 45:5.
97
From the very beginning of my thoughts on the Qur’ân’s double messages in 2006, I invented the terms
“prophetic âyahs” and “messengeric âyahs” to refer to my hypothesis about two different kinds of Qur’ânic
ayahs, one being the fruit of the Prophet Muḥammad’s prophethood and the other, being the result of his
messengerhood. However, as explained further below, while working on this chapter, I found out in 2010
that the Arabic terms âyât nabawî (prophethood verses) and âyât rasûlî (messengerhood verses) had been
already invented and used by the Syrian thinker Muhammad Shahrur (1938- ) in a 1992 publication. The
same nomination in English appear in his other book published in an English translation in 2009. For more
details about Shahrur’s analysis/nomination of the Qur’ânic text, see Muhammad Shahrur, Al-Kitâb wa al-
Qur’ân: Qirâ’a Mu‘âṣira. Beirut: Shirkat al-Maṭbû‘ât li al-Tawzi‘ wa al-Nashr, 2011; see also Muhammad
Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason: the Essential Muhammad Shahrur. Translated and
edited by Andreas Christman. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Both these references are available online at
www.shahrour.org (consulted on May 16th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
129
categories of nabawî (prophetic) and rasûlî (messengeric) dawned on me. For a few
months, besides my daily duties, I did some research to verify if I could find an article
that directly or indirectly mentioned anything about it. To my surprise, I could not find
anything.98
After a few years, while working on this chapter, I spent again a couple of
days combing through different scientific databases, reading recent publications, and
hoping to find some works that can serve as the background literature to my theory. This
time, I found two books and one article related to my theory. The two books were both
written by the Syrian thinker Muhammad Shahrur (1938- ) in which he explains in detail
the necessity of a subdivision of the Qur’ânic text into “messengerhood verses” and
“prophethood verses.”99
However, his explanations about the difference between those
two categories make them very different from the ones I give to my subdivision of the
Qur’ân using the same two names. I will now proceed to explain his convictions and the
differences between his subdivision of the Qur’ânic text and my own theory of double
messages of the Qur`ân in the section below dealing first with Inzâl (revealing the whole
Qur’ân at once), and then with tanzîl (revealing Qur’ânic âyahs through the last twenty
three years of the Prophet’s life). As for the article, it was written by Arash Naraghi
(1966- ) and published on his official website100
and will also be discussed a little further
below, after first introducing another contemporary scholar`s important work:
Abdolkarîm Soroush (1945- ).
In his controversial book entitled The Expansion of Prophetic Experience: Essays
on Historicity, Contingency and Plurality in Religion, for the first time in the history of
tafsîr, Soroush argued that the revelation in the Arabic language and the tradition that
grew around it, must be seen and studied as cases of historical ‘araḍî (contingencies)
rather than dhâtî (essential features) of al-dîn (religion). He claimed that the reader of the
Qur’ân must not integrate “truth of [Qur’ânic] propositions” with reasons or causes.
98 In 2007, I decided to publish an article and present my thoughts under the form of a hermeneutical
theory for the understanding of the Qur’ânic text. I presented an abstract of my theory to my supervisor, Dr.
Patrice C. Brodeur, and he encouraged me to preserve it for my doctoral dissertation.
99
Shahrur, Al-Kitâb wa al-Qur’ân. Also, Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason. Both books
are available online at www.shahrour.org (consulted on May 16th
2012).
100
Arash Naraghi, “Ghor’ân va Mas’aleh-ye Hermenotiki.” E-publsihed by Jonbesh-e Râh-e Sabz (jaras),
(Dec. 2011): no page number, available online at http://www.rahesabz.net/story/46161/ (consulted on
March 3rd
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
130
Instead that truth can be found in the meanings and interpretations, and those meanings
and interpretations are always subject to their various historical contexts.101
Since the
publication of his book, Soroush’s historico-critical hermeneutical approach has caused
many debates and disputes between Shi’î scholars of Islam and him. Much has been
written against his theory and most contemporary Shi’î mufassirûn have refused his
viewpoints, sometime to the extent of accusing him of committing blasphemy. Moreover,
despite his relative success in attracting the attention of scholars in Western academia,
not much has been published to criticise or complement his theory.
About a decade after the publication of Soroush’s book, Naraghi complements
Soroush’s theory in a Persian article where he presents the idea of “two worlds” existing
side by side (or one behind the other) in the Qur’ân.102
Before explaining those worlds, he
first defines the difference between the “text” and the “sacred text.” According to
Naraghi:
For a Muslim, Qur’ân is not “text,” but it is a “sacred text” or “God’s
Word.” The difference between “text” and “sacred text” is not only in its
content or in its hermeneutical structure, but in the reaction of its audience
to it [and the relationship of its readers to it] as a linguistic phenomenon.
For a reader who reads the Qur’ân from a distance [and not as an
adherent], the Qur’ân is just a “text.” But for those [adherents] who use the
Qur’ân as a window through which they can look at themselves and the
world around them, the Qur’ân is a world to dwell in.103
From this perspective, Naraghi explains that the Qur’ân provides two worlds for two
different inhabitants. The first world is that of its original audience or the Arabs living in
the Najd Peninsula at the time of the Prophet Muḥammad. The second world is that of all
its adherents, whether Arabic speaking or not, throughout history.104
He writes:
101 Abdolkarîm Soroush, Qabz va Bast-e Teorik-e Shari’at. Tehran: Serât, 1999 (pp. 55, 116).
102
In Naraghi’s article in Persian, there is no reference to Soroush’s theory. However, in another article
written in English, he clearly mentions that the idea of “two worls” comes from Soroush’s theory on the
Expansion of Prophetic Experience. For this second article, see Arash Naraghi, “‘Moderate Muslims’ in
Iran and the Challenge of Human Rights.” E-published by the author’s official web site, (Aug. 2007): 1-11
(pp. 6-7), available online at www.arashnaraqi.org (consulted on May 2nd
2012).
103
Arash Naraghi, “Ghor’ân va Mas’aleh-ye Hermenotiki.” E-publsihed by Jonbesh-e Râh-e Sabz (jaras),
(Dec. 2011): no page number, available online at http://www.rahesabz.net/story/46161/ (consulted on May
2nd
2012).
104
Surprisingly, in his article written in English Naraghi switches his explanations of the two worlds. He
writes:
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
131
The world of sacred text, meaning the Qur’ân contains two distinct worlds:
The first world (jahân-e avval) is the world of its [original] audience or the
culture of Arabs at the time of its revelation. God had to use this world so
the direct audience of revelation could understand the meanings that He
intended to transfer [to human]. The second world (jahân-e dovvom) is
[the world of] those meanings that [together] form God’s main purpose of
the revelation. The distinction between these two worlds plays a crucial
role in [our] understanding of the text as well as in the tafsîr of its
content.105
To Naraghi, the first world is a human and mundane world with no sacredness in its
nature. Naraghi calls the first world “a bridge that leads readers from their own worlds
[everybody’s first world] to the world of the sacred text or the second world.”106
He puts
an emphasis on the fact that the first world is necessary for the transfer of God’s message,
but is not a necessary part of the divine message. He goes as far as saying that “If God
had addressed another people instead of Arabs, the first world would be totally different
[from what we have in hand today as the Qur’ân], but that would not necessarily cause
any change in the second world of the text.”107
He concludes:
The hermeneutical problem [of the Qur’ân] is that today a cut of
knowledge [or a slit of knowledge] has happened between the world of the
reader of the [sacred] text and the first world of the sacred text. In a pre-
modern world, the world of the audience of the revelation was very close
to the first world of the text. The readers of the sacred texts were living in
the same world than that of Arabs at the time of revelation. Their world of
knowledge and values did not differ from the first world of the sacred text
… so the adherents could easily go from their world to the first world of
the text, and through it march towards the second world of the text … but
… the Qur’an consists of two worlds: The “first world” consists of what God essentially
intends to convey to human beings. This message, which is the heart of the Book, is trans-
historical and trans-cultural. But to convey this message to human beings, God had to (a)
employ a system of codes which was known to the immediate recipients of the Revelation
at the time (i.e., the Arabic language) as a medium of communication; and more
importantly, (b) assume the Arab culture at the time of Revelation as the background of
the communication. These two requirements created the “second world” of the Qur’an.
The “second world” reflects the contingent sociohistorical features of Arab culture at the
time the Book was revealed to the Prophet.
See Arash Naraghi, “‘Moderate Muslims’ in Iran and the Challenge of Human Rights.” E-published by the
author’s official web site (Aug. 2007): 1-11 (pp. 6-7), available online at www.arashnaraqi.org (consulted
on May 2nd
2012).
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
132
today, the first world of the text cannot serve its audience anymore as a
bridge connecting the two worlds with each other … Today, the reader of
the text does not [understand and] share many beliefs and values with
those of Arabs at the time of revelation … This [split] blocks the [modern]
reader’s access to the second world of the text … The way to overcome
this intricate difficulty is to make a distinction between the two worlds of
the text.108
I believe that the Qur’ânic âyahs confirm the existence of these two worlds. In other
words, the Qur’ân is composed of two different kind of âyahs: first, what I call, the
nabawî âyahs, and second, what I call the rasûlî âyahs.109
The prophetic âyahs are those
that reflect the nubuwwat (prophethood) of Muḥammad as a nabî (prophet), and the
messengeric âyahs are those that reflect the risâlat (Messangerness) of Muḥammad as a
rasûl (messenger). As a Prophet, the Prophet lived and prophesized among his people, so
his prophecies aâadhû sibgha (were colored) with their different contexts. In other words,
besides the linguistic context that had a direct impact on both rasûlî and nabawî âyahs,
the prophetic âyahs were directly affected by the geographical, social, cultural, economic,
and political contexts of the Prophet’s life and era. As a messenger, the Prophet
Muḥammad had the mission of presenting a trans-cultural and trans-historical message to
all humanity, both in his era as well as in the future, and that within the boundaries of the
Arabic language. But as a prophet, his mission was to interpret those messengeric
messages by acting upon them, transforming concepts into concrete examples taken from
his own life and particular milieu. The prophetic âyahs present instances and examples of
what the messengeric âyahs try to teach as eternally valid concepts and notions. This
suggests that the messengeric messages form the conceptual backbone of the prophetic
instances. Mixing these two kinds of âyahs results not only in a confusion in the
understanding of the Qur’ân (i.e. tafsîr) and its messages, but also in the legal and
jurisprudential actualization of those Qur’ânic messages. The prophetic âyahs must be
108 Ibid.
109
As explained before, at the time I was developing the theory of double messages of the Qur’ân, I was
not aware of Shahrur’s nomenclature. Although the expressions of prophetic âyahs versus messengeric
âyahs were the result of my original thoughts, as terms and regardless of their definitions, they are coined
by Shahrur in Arabic in his book Al-Kitâb wa al-Qur’ân: Qirâ’a Mu‘âṣira, first published in 1990. See
Shahrur, Al-Kitâb wa al-Qur’ân, available online at www.shahrour.org/ (consulted on March 3rd
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
133
understood in the light of history, but the messengeric âyahs must be read and understood
in the light of reason and through rational effort beyond contextualization of any one
historical period.
To support my theory, I study four terms in the Qur’ân: the term nabî and its
relationship with tanzîl (the gradual revelation of âyahs through time), and then the term
rasûl and its relationship with inzâl (the instantaneous revelation of the whole Qur’ân at
once).
2.6.1 The Term nabî in the Qur’ân
The term nabî (prophet) as a singular generic noun appears 54 times in the Qur’ân.110
The
term in its two different plural forms including the jam‘ sâlim (regular plural) of al-
nabiyyin/al-nabiyyun (prophets), as well as the jam‘ mukassar (broken plural) of al-
anbyâ’ (prophets) appears 21 times in the Qur’ân.111
Out of this total of 73, the term
directly and explicitly refers to the Prophet Muḥammad 34 times.112
Ibn Manẓûr defines
the term nabî as “the one who bears tidings from God the Almighty.” He states that this
term is a Meccan term.113
All other dictionaries and linguists follow him. Nothing in the
vocabulary sense of nabî helps to categorize the kind of tidings brought by a nabî. The
Qur’ân however gives more details about nabî and its functions. The term naba’ (news or
tidings), derived from the same roots of n, b, hamzah (naba’a) as nabî, has been
frequently used in the Qur’ân to refer to what has happened in the past, being narrated as
qaṣaṣ (stories).114
To the Qur’ân, the tidings that naba’ refers to are all historical facts
true and real, although the knowledge of it comes to the Prophet from al-ghayb (the
110 It appears twice (in 37:112 and 2:247) as nabiyyuhum (their prophet), plus 52 times as nabî without al
(a prophet) or al-nabî (the prophet). Here is the list of those âyahs: 2:246; 3:39, 68, 146, 161; 5:81; 6:112;
7:94, 157-8; 8:64-5, 67, 70; 9:61, 73, 113, 117; 19:30, 41, 49, 51, 53-56; 22:52; 25:31; 33:1, 6, 13, 28, 30,
32, 38, 45, 50 (three times), 53 (two times), 56, 59; 37:112; 43:6-7; 49:2; 60:12; 65:1; 66:1, 3, 8-9.
111
2:61, 91, 177, 213; 3:21, 80-1, 84, 112, 181; 4:69, 155, 163; 5:20, 44; 17 :55; 19 :58; 33 :7, 40; 39 :69.
112
3:68; 5:81; 7:157; 8:64-5; 8:70; 9:61, 73, 113, 117; 33:1, 6-7, 13, 28, 30, 32, 38, 40, 45, 50 (three
times), 53 (two times), 56, 59; 49:2; 60:12; 65:1; 66:1, 3, 8-9.
113
Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under naba’a, available online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp
(consulted on May 5th
2012).
114
This term appears 29 times in the Qur’ân in both its singular form (naba’) and in its plural form
(anbâ’). In all its usages, except in 38:67, it refers to an earthly event that happened in the past. On one
occasion (38:88), it refers to the tidings that the Prophet or the Qur’ân will soon inform them about, but in
this case it also refers to mundane events that will soon be narrated to them.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
134
unseen world). So nabî is the one who brings naba’. Some Qur’ânic examples reveal the
very historical and factual nature of naba’.
مون ون بٱلح لقوم ي ىو ور من نبإ مو ي نتوا
We narrate unto thee (somewhat) of the story of Moses and Pharaoh with
truth, for folk who believe. (28:3)
ت ٱوٱت ـو يرى بـ اي قامى وتذ يكم م بر ان قوم إن ـو نوح إ قال لقومهۦ يم نبأ ي لل
ثم ة م يكم م م ثم ل يكن أمر اء م وشر ت أجمعوا أمر توڪ ٱقضوا إلى عى ٱلل
ول تظرون
Recite unto them the story of Noah, when he told his people: O my people!
If my sojourn here and my reminding you by Allâh’s revelations are an
offence unto you, in Allâh have I put my trust, so decide upon your course
of action you and your partners. Let not your course of action be in doubt
for you. Then have at me, give me no respite. (10 :71)
اد وثمود ا ٱلذين من قبڪم قوم نوح و ل يع وٱلذين من بعدهم ألم يأتكم نب مهم إل ٱلل
فرنا بما أر وتههم وقالوا إنا وا أيديهم ى أ ت رد ـو هم بٱلبي تم بهۦ وإنا لفى جاءتهم ر
ونا إليه مريب ا تد م م ش
Hath not the history of those before you reached you: the folk of Noah,
and (the tribes of) A’ad and Thamud, and those after them? None save
Allâh knoweth them. Their messengers came unto them with clear proofs,
but they thrust their hands into their mouths, and said: Lo! we disbelieve in
that wherewith ye have been sent, and lo! we are in grave doubt
concerning that to which ye call us. (14:9)
ا ظ يهم نبأ إبرتهيم إ قال لبيه وقومهۦ ما تعبدون قالوا نعبد أصام كفين وٱت ـو لها
وجدنا ءابا ون قالوا ب ون أو يفعونكم أو يضر يسمعونكم إ تد يفعون قال ه ذتل ءنا
Recite unto them the story of Abraham: When he said unto his father and
his folk: What worship ye? They said: We worship idols, and are ever
devoted unto them. He said: Do they hear you when ye cry? Or do they
benefit or harm you? They said: Nay, but we found our fathers acting on
this wise. (26:69-73)
Even in the story of Solomon and the hudhud (lapwing bird), the term used to refer to
true events happening in the country of Sheba, is the term naba’. 27:20-4 read:
به وتفق ذ بين ل ا أو لابحه د ٱلطير قال ما لى ل أرى ٱلهدهد أم ڪان من ٱلغا ا شديد ذاب ۥ أو ۥ
ير بعيد قال أحطت بما لم تحط به بين مكث ن م ـو ط يقين إن ى ليأتي ى بس
ببإ بإ من ۦ وجئت
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
135
ظيم وجدتها وقومها يسجدون ل رش شىء ولها ٱمرأة تمڪهم وأوتيت من ڪ شمس وجد
هم صد ـو م ن أ ـو يط وزين لهم ٱلش هم ل يهتدون من دون ٱلل بي ن ٱلس هم
And he [Solomon] sought among the birds and said: How is it that I see
not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent? I verily will punish him with
hard punishment or I verily will slay him, or he verily shall bring me a
plain excuse. But he was not long in coming, and he said: I have found out
(a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come unto thee from Sheba with
sure tidings. Lo! I found a woman ruling over them, and she hath been
given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty throne. I found her
and her people worshipping the sun instead of Allâh; and Satan maketh
their works fairseeming unto them, and debarreth them from the way (of
Truth), so that they go not aright.
Beside the Qur’ânic usage of naba’ in 38:88 referring to tidings and stories that will soon
be recited to everybody, the only time that the term refers to something that has not
happened yet is its unique usage at the beginning of sûrah 78 of the Qur’ân, also called
naba’. In this passage, it refers to the day of judgment, but even here, the emphasis is on
the undeniable and factual aspect of that day. The beginning of this sûrah is as following:
يعم ل يعمون ثم ل تفون ن ٱلبإ ٱلعظيم ٱلذى هم يه م م يتساءلون ون
Whereof do they question one another? (It is) of the awful tidings,
concerning which they are in disagreement. Nay, but they will come to
know! Nay, again, but they will come to know! (78:1-5)
While interpreting the “awful tidings,” Ṭabarî mentions three possibilities: “the
resurrection after death,” “the Day of Judgement,” and “the Qur’ân.”115
Most mufassirûn
follow Ṭabarî in this regard. However, Ṭabâṭabâ’î adds a fourth possibility for naba’:
tidings about “God, His attributes, angels, jinns, paradise, hell, etc.” At the beginning of
his tafsîr on these âyahs, and while mentioning the first possibility of the meaning being
“the day of judgment,” Ṭabâṭabâ’î argues that the Qur’ân immediately mentions visible
natural events as a proof for the fact that there will be another stable “state” of being
(nash’at) as real as this changing world.116
So to him, the factual aspect of what he calls
115 Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 27:1-5, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on May 15th
2012).
116
The sûrah 78 continues with these âyahs:
Have We not made the earth an expanse, And the high hills bulwarks? And We have
created you in pairs, And have appointed your sleep for repose, And have appointed the
night as a cloak, And have appointed the day for livelihood. And We have built above
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
136
“the divine threat” (tahdîd) has been proved and emphasised by giving the example of
natural and terrestrial realities.117
What supports the hypothesis that all terms derived from the trilateral roots of
naba’a refer to a factual event within the mundane life is the Qur’ân’s usage of the verbal
form of the term. All mufassirûn are unanimous on nabî being a “name of the agent” or
an ism fâ‘il (present participial) derived from the verb naba’a.118
A glance at different
verbal forms of naba’a used in the Qur’ân reveals that all of them (including naba’a
itself) have earthly events, mundane instances, or human acts as their objects. In other
words, they all find their sense within a historical and social individual or collective
framework.119
Here are some examples:
21 times out of the 51 Qur’ânic appearances of naba’a under a verbal form
pictures God “informing” humans (or giving them news) on the Day of Judgement about
what they did in their earthly life. Following are three examples:
وٱلرض وت ـو م ما ى ٱلس يه ويوم يرجعون إليه يب ئهم بما أل إن لل قد يعم ما أنتم
موا يم شىء بك وٱلل
Lo! verily unto Allâh belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth.
He knoweth your condition. And (He knoweth) the Day when they are
returned unto Him so that He may inform them of what they did. Allâh is
Knower of all things. (29:64)
نس ٱل ر ب م وأخ ذ بما قد ن يوم ـو نس ا ٱل ولو ألقىو معايره يبىو نفسهۦ بصيرة ن ـو
On that day [the day of judgment] man is told the tale of that which he
hath sent before and left behind. Oh, but man is a telling witness against
himself, Although he tender his excuses. (75:13-5)
you seven strong (heavens), And have appointed a dazzling lamp, And have sent down
from the rainy clouds abundant water, Thereby to produce grain and plant, And gardens
of thick foliage. Lo! The Day of Decision is a fixed time. (78:6-16)
117
See al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 78:1-16, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on March 12th
2012).
118
Some mufassirûn have mentioned that nabî is a ṣigha mubâligha or a present participle presenting an
exaggeration in its meaning also called “noun of exaggeration.” So nabî is someone who “frequently”
brings tidings to people and/or someone who brings “a lot” of tidings to people.
119
Here is a list of all appearances of naba’a under different verbal forms in the Qur’ân: 2:31, 33 (two
times); 3:15, 44, 49; 5:14, 48, 60, 105; 6:60, 108, 143, 159, 164; 9:64, 94 (two times), 105; 10:18, 23, 53;
12:15, 36-7, 45; 15:49, 51; 18:13, 33, 78, 103; 22:72; 24:64; 26:221; 29:8; 31:15, 23; 34:7; 35:14; 39:7;
41:50; 53:36; 54:28; 58:6-7; 62:8; 64:7; 66:3 (five times); 66:3; 75:13.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
137
وله مكم ور موا سيرى ٱلل ٱ مون وق دة يب ئكم بما ۥ وٱلم ـو م ٱلغيب وٱلش ـو ون إلىو ترد و
تم تعمون
And say (unto them): Act! Allâh will behold your actions, and (so will)
His messenger and the believers, and ye will be brought back to the
Knower of the Invisible and the Visible, and He will tell you what ye used
to do. (9:105)
Except in two cases, all the other 30 appearances of the concerned terms are about
an event in daily life. Here are 3 examples:
ف ر يه بهۦ وأظهره ٱلل ا نبأ ا مر ٱلبى إلىو بعض أزوتجهۦ حدي ن بعضه وإ أ رض ۥ وأ
ذا بعض ـو ه بأ ا نبأها بهۦ قالت من أن م بير قال نبأنى ٱلعيم ٱل
When the Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives and when she
afterward divulged it and Allâh apprised him thereof, he made known (to
her) part thereof and passed over part. And when he told it her she said:
Who hath told thee? He said: The Knower, the Aware hath told me.120
(66:3)
ذا راق بيى وبي ـو ا قال ه يه صبر ما لم تستطع بتأوي أنب ئ
He said: This is the parting between thee and me! I will announce unto
thee the interpretation of that thou couldst not bear with patience. (18:78)
120 One of the very popular Qur’ânic techniques for starting a narration is to start it with wa idh, mostly
translated as “when” or “and when” (not to be confused with wa idhâ meaning the same thing). I checked
70 different tafâsîr, including those of Sufîs, Salafîs, and Zaydis, and I could not find any explanation about
wa idh more complete than that of Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s explanation when he explains that wa idh is a ẓarf (vessel)
that reflects a maqdar (what is decided and passed). A few others, such as Shûkânî (1173-1255H), simply
mention that wa idh means ‘and remember’ [O Prophet]. Many others ignore it. I believe that from a
narrative critical viewpoint, this term puts an emphasis on the content of the narration as an undisputable
event, and presents a certainty about the non-returnable time in the past within which the event, as a matter
of fact, happened. I tried to find some textual support in tafâsîr for this hypothesis. To my surprise, they
have not paid any special attention to this term and its probable technical usage. The only exception that I
found was in Nasafî’s tafsîr on 5:116. The same technique has been used at the beginning of 5:116
narrating a dialogue between Jesus and God in which God asks Jesus if he has said to people to take him
and his mother as two gods beside Allâh. Like in other cases of narrations starting with wa idh, almost all
mufassiûn have ignored the term, and have simply mentioned that this dialogue will happen between God
and Jesus on the day of judgment. However, in his tafsîr on 5:116, al-Nasafî (600-684H) writes:
Most [have believed] that this question [will happen] on the Day of Judgment. The
previous âyahs and the rhetoric of this âyah are enough proof for that. It has been [also]
said that [God] has addressed him [Jesus] while ascending him to the skies [so it has
happened in the past, and], and the reason is the existence of idh.
See Hâfiẓ al-Dîn ‘Abdullâh b. Aḥmad al-Nasafî, Madârik al-Tanzîl wa Ḥaqâ’iq al-Ta’wîl: Tafsîr al-Nasafî.
4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-kalim al-Ṭayyib, 1998, under 5:116, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=1526 (consulted on May 3rd
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
138
This last example is one of the most interesting usages of the term in a Qur’ânic story
similar to (or may be rooted in) some Jewish myths.121
The story begins with Moses and
an anonymous companion being on a road where they find a “servant of God” unto
whom God has given mercy. Moses requests to follow him, so he can teach Moses what
God has taught him. In a series of unusual events (comparable to “crazy wisdom” in
Buddhism), Moses cannot fathom the reasons of the servant of God’s actions, and
protests to him. At the end of their journey, the knowledgeable man tells Moses about the
interpretations of his actions. Here, the reader has in hand a series of strange actions,
happening in an unexplained time by unknown characters. Every element of the story
calls to a metaphor, but the presence of the verb naba’a together with the usage of wa idh
at the start point of the narration send a clear message to the Arab speaking readership of
the text: this story is real, its events (although unusual) have really happened, and this is a
matter of fact. In a way, while the knowledgeable man informs Moses about God’s
justice behind his actions, the narrator of the story yunabbi’ (informs) us of the meaning
behind those events, and by doing so, invites us to have the same “unconditional trust in
God” as someone (Moses) who has witnessed those real events in person.
The only two Qur’ânic usages of any verbal form of naba’a that might sound like
an exception to our hypothesis can be found in 2:31-3 and 15:49. The first set of âyahs
(2:31-3) are part of the Qur’ânic story about the creation of Adam. They read:
ى ٱلرض خيفة كة إن ى جا ـو م ل يا من يفسد يا وإ قال رب ماء قالوا أتجع ٱلد ويسف
س ل ونقد ى ونحن نسب ح بحمد م ر ها ثم ماء م ءادم ٱل م ما ل تعمون و قال إن ى أ
تم لء إن ـو ماء ه بـ ونى بأ كة قال أن ـو متا ٱلم م لا إل ما ل ـو بح دقين قالوا ـو أنت ص إن
م ما بئهم بأ ـ ادم أن ـو ي ٱلعيم ٱلحكيم قال ي م م قال ألم أق لكم إن ى أ ما
بأهم بأ ا أن م وت ـو م ب ٱلس
تم تكتمون م ما تبدون وما وٱلرض وأ
And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy
in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm
therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify
Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. And He taught
Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me
of the names of these, if ye are truthful. They said: Be glorified! We have
no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only
121 For an example of detailed studies on the Jewish origins of this Qur’ânic story, see Brannon M.
Wheeler, “The Jewish Origins of Qur’ân 18:65-82? Re-examining Arent Jan Wensinck’s Theory.” Journal
of the American Oriental Society, vol. 118, No. 2 (April-June 1998): 153-171.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
139
Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. He said: O Adam! Inform them of their
names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not
tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know
that which ye disclose and which ye hide.122
(2:30-3)
In the Sunnî world of tafsîr, Ṭabarî reports a debate among mufassirûn as to what
“names” (the object of anbi’ûnî and anbi’hum) might refer to in 2:31 and 2:33. In his
long tafsîr on 2:30-3, Ṭabarî narrates many aḥâdîth with different isnâd presenting
different possibilities for the interpretation of “names.” Some mufassirûn such as Ibn
Kathîr and Qurṭubî follow him. The aḥâdîth narrated by Ṭabarî can be categorized under
four main categories: 1) those that consider “names” referring to all beings and creatures
in the world such as plants, animals, mountains, seas, etc.; 2) those that consider “names”
referring to the names of all descendants of Adam; 3) those that consider “names”
referring to the names of angels; and 4) those that present a combination of the three
previous possibilities. At the end of his tafsîr on 2:30-3, Ṭabarî declares his preference
for “the names of all descendants of Adam and those of angels.”123
Although Ṭabarî,
being one of the erudites of Bayt al-Ḥikmah (the House of Wisdom), had access to most
tafâsîr of his contemporary mufassirûn, including Sufîs such as al-Tustarî (200-283H), he
does not mention anything about how Sufî streams of tafsîr of his era interpret 2:31. Al-
Tustarî briefly mentions that “names” in 2:31 is referring to the “knowledge” of things
and not just to their names. Neither Tustarî, nor those Sufî mufassirûn who followed him,
support their tafsîr of the term with any ḥadîth.124
Unlike Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî’s tafsîr on
2:30-3 is under the influence of the Sufî interpretation of the âyah. In his very brief tafsîr
of 2:31, Zamakhsharî mentions only one possibility for the meaning of “names” being
“whatever can be named,” then he explains that the term “names” in this âyah does not
refer only to names of different kinds and species, but also to their natures, their
specifications, their usages, and their profits for human in both the earthly and the
hereafter lives.125
Râzî presents the same idea under three different possibilities. His three
122 Here also the narration starts with the same technique that uses wa idh.
123
See al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 2:30-33, available online at
www.almeshkat.net (consulted on May 1st 2012).
124
Al-Tustarî’s tafsîr in English is available online at http://www.altafsir.com/Books/Al_Jalalain_Eng.pdf
(consulted on May 4th
2012).
125
See al-Zamakhsharî, Tafsîr al-Kashshâf, under 2:31, available online at
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
140
possibilities include: “different human languages,” “whatever can be named including
objects, plants, animals, etc.,” and “the natures and attributes of things.”126
He does not
mention his choice, but explains the first possibility with such enthusiasm and details that
one might conclude that that is his preference. Some mufassirûn such as Baydhâwi follow
Râzî.127
In the Shi’î world of tafsîr, Ṭabarsî explains all the above mentioned possibilities,
and adds a ḥadîth from Imâm al-Ṣâdiq to support the combination of all those
possibilities being the reference of the term “names.”128
Most other Shi’î mufassirûn
follow Ṭabarsî, but Ṣadr al-Dîn Muḥammad Shirâzî, also called Mullâ Ṣadrâ (980-
1050H), elaborates a detailed and philosophical article, and cast new lights on the
meaning of “names.” He concludes that “names” include both “seen beings” and “unseen
meanings.” He gives the example of “knowledge” and says: “The knowledge has a
ḥaqîqa dhâtiyyah (intrinsic truth) than dwells in God, a ḥaqîqa asmâ’iyyah (idiomatic
truth) that [human] mind can perceive as an abstract image of God’s knowledge, and a
ḥaqîqa imkâniyyah (accidental truth) that is the happening of knowledge in those
http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194 (consulted on May 1
st 2012).
126
Râzî explains that Adam learned all languages such as Arabic, Latin, Persian, etc. from God, but angels
were living in different groups. Each group knew only one of those languages and could not understand
other groups’ languages. God gathered all angels together and ordered Adam to show them his multi-
lingual abilities. By doing so, God proved to the angels that Adam deserved the vicegerency of God on
earth. Then when he was exiled to live on earth, his sons scattered in different regions of the earth, and
centuries after centuries their descendants preserved one language and forgot the other ones. That is how
we came to have different languages on earth today. See al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 2:30-3, available
online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (Consulted on May 3rd
2012).
127
Bayḍâwî’s tafsîr on 2:31 is just one paragraph. He chooses Râzî’s first option, so to Baydhâwi,
“language” or “the knowledge of words” is what “names” refers to. He adds: “The knowledge of words
leads to the knowledge of meanings, and through that, human finds the ability of understanding four
worlds: rational world, perceptional world, imaginable world and fictitious world.” See Imâm ‘Abdullâh b.
‘Umar b. Muḥammad al-Shirâzî al-Bayḍâwî, Anwâr al-Tanzîl wa Asrâr al-Ta’wîl. 5 vols. E-published by
Maktabat Mujaddidiyah, available online at http://www.maktabah.org/quran/tafsir/970-tafsir-al-baydawi--
.html (consulted on May 3rd
2012).
128
Ṭabarsî’s approach often is to first explain the linguistical aspects of the concerned âyah, then to
narrate what mufassirûn before him (Shi’î or Sunnî) have mentioned and finally to present his preference.
In his tafsîr on 2:31-3, he narrates the above-mentioned ḥadîth at the end of his explanation on “names,”
but he does not clearly declare his preference. See Abu ‘Ali Faḍl b. Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsî, Majma‘ al Bayân li
Tafsîr al-Qur’ân. 10 vols. Beirut: Muassasat al-A‘lamî li al-Maṭbû’ât, 1415H, under 2:31, available online
at http://www.alseraj.net/a-k/quran/mbtq/mb.htm (consulted on May 4th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
141
[humans] who know. So we call every one of them ‘alîm (knower or knowledgeable), and
that comes from [reflects] God’s attribute of al-‘alîm (All-Knower).”129
One of the most
complete tafâsîr on 2:31 can be read in Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s work. With his inclusivist approach,
he gathers what all mufassirûn prior to him have discussed, and adds his opinion to the
debate believing:
[“names” refers to] some righteous and purified superior [human] beings
hidden from angels under the hijâb of unseen. Because of their grace God
descended all names, and whatever dwells on the earth and in the skies
have been derived from their light. Although they are numerous, in their
diversity, they are not separate from each other and they do not differ from
each other as we see differences between people.”130
Although Ṭabâṭabâ’î does not precisely name them, his tafsîr undoubtedly talks about the
twelve Imams (or fourteen infallibles) of twelver shi’ism.
Beside the fact that there is no consensus among mufassirûn on what the “names”
as the object of anbi’ûnî and anbi’hum in 2:31-3 refers to, most possibilities presented by
mufassirûn (such as languages, names of all creatures, or names of some purified
righteous humans) confirm the hypothesis that all terms derived from naba’a (including
nabî) refer to giving tidings about earthly, time and space bound matters. The only
contradiction to the hypothesis might be in the one, among many as seen above, possible
tafsîr of the “names” referring to attributes of God. But even in that case, Mullâ Ṣadra’s
detailed explanation reveals to what extent those attributes can only be perceived within
their relationship with human’s earthly needs, and understood by their reflection in
human’s time bound nature.
The second possible exception of a verb derived from gnihtemos ot gnirrefer بء ن
unearthly might be found in 15:49. It reads:
ٱلليم ذابى هو ٱلعذا حيم وأن بادى أن ى أنا ٱلغفور ٱلر نب ئ
Announce, (O Muḥammad) unto My slaves that verily I am the Forgiving,
the Merciful. And that My doom is the dolorous doom. (15:49-50)
129 Ṣadr al-Dîn Muḥammad Shirâzî Mullâ Ṣadrâ, Al-Tafsîr. 8 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Ta‘âruf li al-Maṭbû‘ât,
1998, under 2:31.
130
Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 2:31, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on May 15th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
142
Like the previous case, here the âyah forms a part of the Qur’ânic story of the creation of
Adam. At the very end of the story, God shifts from a direct conversation with Satan to
an imperative tone and says: “Announce unto My slaves that verily I am the Forgiving.
And that My doom is the dolorous doom.”131
Almost all tafâsîr on 15:49-50 are short and
brief.132
In the Sunnî world of tafsîr, Ṭabarî mentions a ḥadîth according to which the
Prophet passes by a group of Muslims who are laughing together. The Prophet blames
them for laughing and turns his back and goes away. Later, he comes back and says to
them: “When I went out [of your gathering], Jibrîl came to me and said: ‘O Muḥammad,
verily Allâh says: ‘why do you disappoint my servants from my Mercy? Tell my servants
that verily I am the Forgiving, the Merciful. And that My doom is the dolorous
doom.’’”133
Some Sunnî mufassirûn such as Râzî, Qurṭubî, and Ibn Kathîr cite the same
ḥadîth, but like Ṭabarî, none of them interprets it or goes into any detail. However, at the
end of his tafsîr on 15:49-50, Râzî mentions four laṭâ’if (delicate techniques) in these
âyahs and says that these techniques give “Allâh’s Mercy” a “dominant status” vis-à-vis
his punishment. To Râzî, the dominant presence of Allâh reflected in the three techniques
of: 1) saying “My servants”; 2) using terms such as “Indeed, I,” and the definite articles
of “al,” in 15:49; and 3) including the Prophet by choosing an imperative verb, is
completed with 4) the fact that these tidings are brought to all faithful people with good
or ill deeds, as if they hear it from a true witness (the Prophet) in their real life.134
Ṭabarî’s ḥadîth is totally absent in Shi’î tafâsîr. Shi’î mufassirûn are unanimous
on the fact that 15:49-50 announce God’s forgiveness and mercy, as well as his
131 Pickthall translates the verb nabbi’ as “announce,” Yusuf Ali translates it as “tell,” Dr. Mohsin
translates it as “declare,” and Shâkir translates it as “inform.” This shows to what extent the term represents
one of its unusual usages.
132
I checked more than 20 tafâsîr including, among others, the tafâsîr of Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî, Râzî, Ibn
Kathîr, Qurṭubî, Suyûṭî, Bayḍâwî, Shûkânî, Jazâ’irî, Tabarasî, Ṭûsî, Qumî, Ṣadr al-Dîn al-Shirâzî, Fayḍ al-
Kâshânî, Junâbadhî, and Ṭabâṭabâ’î.
133
The first narrator in Ṭabarî’s isnâd is an unknown person presented as “a man from the Prophet’s
companions.” Other mufassirûn who include that ḥadîth in their tafsîr on 15:49-50 do not identify him and
repeat Ṭabarî’s isnâd. Those who do not mention that ḥadîth do not give any information more than a
simple translation of the âyahs.
134
See al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 15:49-50, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on May 8th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
143
punishment to all humanity beyond time and space. However, Ṭabâṭabâ’î adds an
interesting explanation to the message of 15:49-50. He writes:
No forgiveness or Mercy [are imaginable] without the possibility of some
impediments that might prevent them from happening, or some obstacles
that might limit them. But, when Allâh (hallowed be He) orders
[something], there is no superior judgment to his order, and no barrier can
deflect it. So nothing can obstruct His Forgiveness or His Mercy, and
nothing can limit them but His own Beneficent Majesty [if he changes His
decision].135
To Ṭabâṭabâ’î, it is clear that the undeniable “feasibility” of God’s forgiveness and
mercy, as well as his punishment, is what 15:49-50 talks about. Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr
somewhat confirms that although appearing as an exception, some narrative techniques
such as the choice of an unusual verb that refers to earthly matters might have helped the
message of the âyah being understood as the undisputable happening of God’s
forgiveness and punishment as real events happening in an earthly life.
2.6.2 The Term rasûl in the Qur’ân
The triliteral root of r, s, l (rasala) has been used 513 times in the Qur’ân, under eight
different derived verbal and non-verbal forms. With 332 apperances, rasûl (messenger) is
the most frequent Qur’ânic nominal term derived from rasala.136
One may add to it the
35 usages of mursal (the fourth form passive participle of rasala) that also means
messenger. One of the most popular Qur’ânic usages of rasûl is when the Qur’ân refers to
the Prophet Muḥammad as al-rasûl (the Messenger), rasûlihî (His messenger) or
rasûlallâh (the Messenger of Allâh).
A basic textual study of this term in the Qur’ân reveals important information:
a) Unlike the term nabî that has been exclusively used to refer to a human being who
receives the divine revelation, the term rasûl (in singular or plural forms) has been shared
between humans and angels. This suggests a non-earthly (heavenly) element/aspect in the
135 See al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 15:49-50, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on April 2nd
2012).
136
Other appearances of rasala are: 130 times under the fourth verbal form (arsala), six times as the noun
risâlât, four times as the noun risâlat, four times as the fourth active participle mursil, once as the fourth
form active participle mursilat, and once as the fourth form passive participle mursalât.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
144
nature of rasûl’s mission versus the human and earthly nature of nabî’s mission. Here are
three examples:
ـو ىو وث ل أولى أجحة م كة ر ـو ٱلم وٱلرض جا وت ـو م اطر ٱلس ع يزيد ى ٱلحمد لل ـو ث ورب
شىء قدير ىو ما يشاء إن ٱلل ٱل
Praise be to Allâh, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, Who
appointeth the angels messengers having wings two, three and four. He
multiplieth in creation what He will. Lo! Allâh is Able to do all things.
(35:1)
ول إل بسان قومهۦ ليبي ن ل ا من ر من يشاء ويهدى من يشاء هم وما أر ٱلل وهو ٱلعزيز يض
ٱلحكيم
And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he
might make (the message) clear for them. Then Allâh sendeth whom He
will astray, and guideth whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Wise. (14:4)
ومن ٱلاس ل ڪة ر ـو يصطفى من ٱلم ميع بصير ٱلل إن ٱلل
Allâh chooseth from the angels messengers, and (also) from mankind. Lo!
Allâh is Hearer, Seer. (22:75)
b) On several occasions, the Qur’ân declares its “article of faith,” in which it includes
rusulihî (His messengers) among the fundamental basis of what distinguishes a believer
from a non-believer. In other words, the Qur’ân considers the disbelief in rasûls as kufr
(unbelief). The only Qur’ânic âyah that seems to offer this fundamental role or honor to
the term anbyâ’ presents it in the context of adherents’ daily duties, and compares it to
their useless long acts of prayer. In other words, despite numerous Qur’ânic blames on
those who denied, hurt or even killed anbyâ’, disbelieving in anbyâ’ has been presented
only as equal to unfaithful acts, but denying rasûls has been considered as disbelieving in
God.137
All mufassirûn, both Sunnî and Shi’î, are unanimous that the five founding
137 The âyah in question is as following:
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he
who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the
prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy
and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper
worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one,
and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are
sincere. Such are the God-fearing. (2:177)
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
145
principles of Muslim faith –as believing in Allâh, His malâ’ikat (angels), His kutub
(books), His rusul, and al-yawm al-âkhar (the day of judgment)– cannot be separated
from each other, and that disbelieving in any of them equals kufr. This unity is reflected
in the Qur’ânic rhetorical style presenting the three time bound elements of angels,
books, and messengers in their relationship to God (his angels, his books, his
messengers), and including the beyond-time-element of the day of judgment as an
element existing in God. By the repetition of the exact same terms always in the same
order, the Qur’ân seems to draw an unbreakable line between, at both ends, a beyond-
time God at the beginning and end of time itself, with in between a time bound universe
in which humanity is called to march towards God following what His angels have
brought to His messengers from Him. This path is a beyond time and contextless path
given to rasûls and shown to humanity by their intermediary. This suggests that for the
Qur’ân, all rasûls share the same mission (clearly mentioned below in 2:285), and that
their relationship to God gives them a status close to the realm of divine matters. This
exceptional status, as we will see further, comes from the trans-historical nature of
rasûls’ mission versus the time bound function of nabîs. Here are three examples:
مون ب هۦ وٱلم ول بما أنزل إليه من ر هۦ ءامن ٱلر تبهۦ ور كتهۦ و ـو وم ءامن بٱلل ل
هۦ ن ر ق بين أحد م معا وأطعا نفر ٱلمصير وقالوا ا وإلي رب فران
The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from
his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allâh and His angels
and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between
any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us)
Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying. (2:285)
أيا ٱلذين ءام ـو ب ٱلذى أنزل من ي ـو ولهۦ وٱلڪت ىو ر ل ب ٱلذى نز ـو ولهۦ وٱلكت ور وا ءاموا بٱلل
ا قب ل بعيد ـو هۦ وٱليوم ٱلخر قد تبهۦ ور كتهۦ و ـو وم ومن يكفر بٱلل
O ye who believe! Believe in Allâh and His messenger and the Scripture
which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He
revealed aforetime. Whoso disbelieveth in Allâh and His angels and His
It is not surprising that here al-anbiyâ’ has come after all other elements of faith, and has been immediately
followed by righteous human acts. This clearly shows that the emphasis is on daily life and what humans
can do to live a righteous life according to the guidance of the prophets.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
146
scriptures and His messengers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered
far astray.138
(4:136)
فرين ـو ك ل دو إن ٱلل و وميك هۦ وجبري ڪتهۦ ور ـو وم
ا لل دو ان من
Who is an enemy to Allâh, and His angels and His messengers, and
Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allâh (Himself) is an enemy to the
disbelievers. (2:98)
c) The same superiority of rasûl to nabî might be seen in all the appearances of both
terms together in a same âyah. On six different Qur’ânic occasions, these two terms are
used together.139
In all cases, the term rasûl appears before nabî. One of the popular
rhetorical techniques of the Qur’ân is called al-taqaddum wa al-ta’akhkhur (anteriority
and posteriority, not to be confused with hyperbaton or al-taqdîm wa al-ta’khîr).
According to this technique, in some Qur’ânic instances, the order of the elements
presented in an âyah represents a spectrum of value judgment going from superior to
inferior or vice versa (taqaddum fi al-sharaf wa al-kamâl).140
This rhetorical technique
and its Qur’ânic instances have been carefully discussed by many mufassirûn and
mutakallimûn.141
A quick look at some major tafâsîr reveals that classical mufassirûn did
not pay attention to this repeatedly respected order of rasûl and nabî. Whatever the
reason, it is surprizing to realize that some of them, such as Râzî, believed that the
hierarchy of taqaddum wa ta’akhkhur must be seen and respected in the undividable
body of the above-mentionned five elements of Islam’s article of faith, but do not see it in
the unchangeable order that the Qur’ân uses to talk about messengers and prophets in the
same âyah.142
Here are three examples of this Qur’ânic arrangement of the concerned
138 At the beginning of 4:136, the Qur’ân mixes them up and places the Prophet Muḥammad right after
God, but it immediately repeats the list in the “right” order.
139
The three cases not mentioned in this thesis are 7:157; 19:51, 54.
140
For an example of the same hierarchy presented in two different directions, one from the highest to the
lowest, and the other from the lowest to the highest, see 70:11-14 and 80:34-6.
141
For some examples, see Ṣadr al-Dîn al-Shirâzî Mullâ Ṣadrâ, Al-Ḥikma al-Muta‘âlyiah fi al-Asfâr al-
‘Aqliyyah al-Arba‘a. 9 vols. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-Turâth al-‘Arabî, 1410H (vol. 3, p. 257-70); or
Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Nahâyat al-Ḥikma. 16th ed. Qom: Nashr-e Eslâmî, 1422H (pp. 198-
202).
142
See al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 2:285 and 4:136, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on May 10th
2012). For a detailed discussion on
anteriority and posteriority as a philosophical technique, see also al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Nahâyat al-Ḥikma, 279-
281.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
147
terms:
ا ٱلذى له إليڪم جميع ول ٱلل أيها ٱلاس إن ى ر ـو ي وٱلرض ق وت ـو م ٱلس ه إل هو يحىۦ ۥ م ـو ل إل
و ويميت من بٱلل ى ٱلذى ي وله ٱلبى ٱلم ور تهۦ وٱتبعوه لعڪم تهتدون ـ اموا بٱلل ـو ڪم
Say (O Muḥammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allâh to you
all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the
heavens and the earth. There is no God save Him. He quickeneth and He
giveth death. So believe in Allâh and His messenger, the Prophet who can
neither read nor write, who believeth in Allâh and in His Words, and
follow him that haply ye may be led aright.143
(7:158)
ول ول ن من ر ا من قب قى وما أر ما ي ن ى أميتهۦ يسخ ٱلل ـو يط ألقى ٱلش إا تمىو بى إل
تهۦ ـو ءاي ن ثم يحڪم ٱلل ـو يط يم حكيم ٱلش وٱلل
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited
(the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he
recited thereof. But Allâh abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then
Allâh establisheth His revelations. Allâh is Knower, Wise. (22:52)
جال ن ر د أبا أحد م ان محم ا ا م يم شىء بك ان ٱلل ن و ـ وخاتم ٱلبي ول ٱلل كن ر ـو كم ول
Muḥammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the
messenger of Allâh and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allâh is ever Aware
of all things. (33:40)
d) One of the common arguments that rasûls used to convince their audience about the
trueness of their message is to put an emphasis on the fact that they do not ask any ajr
143 For centuries, there has been a long debate around the term al-nabî al-ummî (the illiterate Prophet)
among mufassirûn. There is no consensus on what this expression might mean exactly. Whatever the
meaning is, it is obvious that the literary aspect of the Prophet’s life has been presented in the context of his
prophethood and not of his messengerhood. In his article on this Qur’ânic expression, Sebastian Günther
studies its different possibilities of meaning and concludes:
These findings basically suggest that a more comprehensive appreciation of the Qur’ânic
term al-nabî al-ummî can contribute essentially to the understanding of Muḥammad’s
prophethood and the history of Islam.
See Sebastian Günther, “Muḥammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur’ân and Qur’ânic
Exegesis.” Journal of Qur’ânic Studies, vol. 4, No. 1 (2002): 1-26 (p. 2). Also Madigan briefly mentions
some of the above-mentioned possibilities when he writes:
Al-nabî al-ummî—variously understood as ‘the prophet who can neither read nor write’, ‘the
unlettered prophet’, ‘the prophet to those who have as yet no scripture’. The translation given here
is more neutral—and quite justifiable if we take umam as equivalent to gentes. For a detailed
survey of both Muslim and non-Muslim interpretations of the term, see Khalil ‘Athamina, “‘An-
Nabiyy al-Ummiyy’: An Inquiry into the Meaning of a Qur’ânic Verse,” Der Islam 69 (1992):
61.80.
See Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image, p. 116, n. 12.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
148
(wage or reward) for what they do.144
In all Qur’ânic cases of this argument, whenever it
is a direct citation from a past prophet presenting this argument, except in 10:72 and
11:29, God’s messenger starts his argument by saying that he is a rasûlun amîn (a faithful
messenger).145
But 10:72 and 11:29 do not make an exception to the non-earthly
remuneration of rasûl’s mission because both âyahs are the repetition and the
reformulation of 26:106-109 in which Noah brings this argument introducing himself as
rasûlun amîn. All other Qur’ânic appearances of this argument are exclusively about the
Prophet Muḥammad, and in most of them, God addresses the Prophet with qul (tell)
without mentioning rasûl or nabî, and orders him to bring this argument to his people.146
Here are three examples:
ين إ قال لهم أخوهم نو بت قوم نوح ٱلمرذ وأطيعون ول أمين ٱتقوا ٱلل ح أل تتقون إن ى لكم ر
يه من أجر ـ كم وأطيعون وما أ مين ٱتقوا ٱلل ـو ٱلع ىو ر إن أجرى إل
Noah’s folk denied the messengers (of Allâh), When their brother Noah
said unto them: Will ye not ward off (evil)? Lo! I am a faithful messenger
unto you, So keep your duty to Allâh, and obey me. And I ask of you no
wage therefor; my wage is the concern only of the Lord of the Worlds. So
keep your duty to Allâh, and obey me. (26:105-10)
يد شىء ش ىو وهو ى ٱلل ن أجر هو لكم إن أجرى إل ألتكم م ما ق
Say: Whatever reward I might have asked of you is yours. My reward is
the affair of Allâh only. He is Witness over all things.147
(34:47)
يه من أجر وما أنا من ٱلمتك فين ـ كم ما أ ق
Say (O Muḥammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee for this, and I am
no impostor. (38:86)
144 This argument has also been used in the Old (First) and the New (Second) Testaments. See, for
example, the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, specifically chapter 9.
145
Beside the fact that in all those cases, the speaker introduces himself as a faithful rasûl, every time the
Qur’ân shifts to another prophet, the narration starts with the announcement of people denying al-mursalîn
(lit. the messengers).
146
On two occasions (52:40 and 68:46) God blames non-believers for their denial of a truth that has been
offered to them with no “material expense,” and finally in 6:90 God announces to the Prophet that “And lo!
thine verily will be a reward unfailing.” Here is a complete list of the concerned âyahs: 6:90; 11:29; 25:57;
26:109, 127, 145, 164, 180; 34:47; 38:86; 42:23; 52:40; 68:5, 46.
147
It is not clear why Pickthall switches between “wage” and “reward” as the translation of the same term
(ajr) in the same context.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
149
On the contrary, the only time that the idea of any wage or reward for a nabî has been
mentioned in the Qur’ân is in 29:27. Here the Qur’ân states that putting al-nubuwwa (the
prophethood) in Abraham’s offspring was the ajr that God gave him in this world. The
idea of prophethood as a worldly reward or wage corresponds very well with the time and
space bound nature of prophetic mission. Also, it can be seen as a via negativa for the
trans-historical and universalistic mission of rasûl with no worldly reward. It reads:
ه أجره ووهبا له ـو ب وءاتي ـو ة وٱلكت يته ٱلبو ا ى ر وجع ـو ويعقو ح نيا ۥ إ ۥ ى وإنه ۥ ى ٱلد
حين ـو ٱلخرة لمن ٱلص
And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the
prophethood and the Scripture among his seed, and We gave him his
reward in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the
righteous.
e) The concept of al-da‘wa (calling) is one of the major notions in the Qur’ân. Much has
been written about it by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars.148
To have a sense of its
crucial role in Islamic theology and Muslims’ perception of Allâh, it is enough to
mention that in his tafsîr on 40:43, Ṭabâṭabâ’î discusses that the al-rabubiyyah
(Lordness) of Allâh is “incomplete” without his worldly da‘wa to the humanity inviting
all humans to go towards him by following al-ṣirâṭ al-mustaqîm (the straight path).
Ṭabâṭabâ’î explains that God has two da‘was: one in this world and the other in the
hereafter (mentioned in 17:52). He mentions that these two together complete the
lordness of God vis-à-vis humanity.149
Consequently, all messengers’ calls are the echoes
of the same da‘wa repeated whithin the history of human being.150
A good example of a
non-Muslim scholar’s work on the concept of al-da‘wa is Egdunas Racius’ dissertation
148 To see some examples of what Muslim scholars have discussed about the concept of da‘wa, it is
enough to read any mufassir’s work on 2:186. Most classical mufassirûn explain al-da‘wa by way of a
philological effort through its synonyms, as well as through contextual comparisons between various
appearances of the term in the Qur’ân. The ideological aspect of the term/concept, as we see it today, is
almost absent in their works. However, this thesis is not interested in the ideological application of da‘wa
as a missionary activity, but only in its relationship to the term/concept of rasûl.
149
To avoid the colloquial connotation of “lordship” as an honor that can be offered to humans, I
preferred to invent the term “lordness” which is a closer translation to al-rabubiyyah in Arabic, which is
unique to God.
150
See al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 40:43, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on April 5th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
150
entitled The Multiple Nature of Islamic Da‘wa. Racius meticulously studies this concept
with an emphasis on its political applications throughout the Islamic History. In his
textual analysis of the term al-da‘wa in the Qur’ân and the sunnah, he presents three
meanings for it. He writes:
Etymologically, word “da‘wa” covers meanings ranging from addressing,
calling, appealing, requesting, demanding, to worshiping … In the Quran,
the word “da‘wa” has three primary meanings: 1) worshiping God or idols,
2) addressing, asking and calling (God, idols, people), 3) inviting to
religion (Islam or other). All of these meanings have religious
connotations. However, the third one, in addition to reflecting a direct
relationship between humans and deities, or among humans, also implies
an intermediary agent –an inviter, or dâ‘i …151
In his conclusion, Racius states:
In the founding texts of Islam there abound sayings, where God urges
Muḥammad to invite people to Him. In fact, the whole mission of
Muḥammad was nothing else but da‘wa –inviting people to submit to the
only God (Allâh).152
This third meaning/category of da‘wa in the Qur’ân has been presented as God’s ultimate
goal to send his messengers and his revelation to them. Here is an example:
اد وثمود ا ٱلذين من قبڪم قوم نوح و وٱلذين من بعدهم ألم يأتكم نب ل يعمهم إل ٱلل
ت ـو هم بٱلبي اجاءتهم ر م م تم بهۦ وإنا لفى ش فرنا بما أر وتههم وقالوا إنا وا أيديهم ى أ رد
وٱلرض وت ـو م اطر ٱلس ش هم أى ٱلل ونا إليه مريب قالت ر م ليغفر تد و ن يد لڪم م
ى سم م أج رڪم إلىو خ ان يعبد نوبكم وي ا م ونا ا تريدون أن تصد قالوا إن أنتم إل بشر م
بين ن م ـو ط ءاباؤنا أتونا بس
Hath not the history of those before you reached you: the folk of Noah,
and (the tribes of) A’ad and Thamud, and those after them? None save
Allâh knoweth them. Their messengers came unto them with clear proofs,
but they thrust their hands into their mouths, and said: Lo! we disbelieve in
that wherewith ye have been sent, and lo! we are in grave doubt
concerning that to which ye call us. Their messengers said: Can there be
doubt concerning Allâh, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? He
calleth you that He may forgive you your sins and reprieve you unto an
151 Egdunas Racius, The Multiple Nature of Islamic Da‘wa, Ph.D. Diss. University of Helsinki, 2004 (pp.
34-5), available online at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/aasia/vk/racius/themulti.pdf (consulted on
May 9th
2012).
152
Ibid., 185.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
151
appointed term. They said: Ye are but mortals like us, who would fain turn
us away from what our fathers used to worship. Then bring some clear
warrant. (14:9-10)
In the above-mentioned example, as well as anywhere else in the Qur’ân, whenever there
is a reference to the “intermediary agent” of da‘wa, the term rasûl is used. So it seems
that from a Qur’ânic point of view, rasûls are callers to God (33:46) having the divine
mission of calling people to the “faith” (57:8) and to the “salvation” (40:41), as God
himself calls the humanity by the intermediary of his rasûls to the paradise and
forgiveness (2:222) and to the “abode of peace” (10:25). Here are two more examples of
the explicit usage of the term rasûl with da‘wa:
و إ تصعدون و ا بغم ل ڪيل تحزنوا ل ت م بڪم ـو كم أث و وڪم ى أخر ول يد أحد وٱلر ىو ۥن
بڪم ـو ىو ما اتڪم ول ما أص خبير بما تعمون وٱلل
When ye climbed (the hill) and paid no heed to anyone, while the
messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight). Therefor He rewarded
you grief for (his) grief, that (He might teach) you not to sorrow either for
that which ye missed or for that which befell you. Allâh is Informed of
what ye do.153
(3:153)
153 This is a very interesting example. The âyah is about the battle of Uhud when some companions of the
Prophet thought that he had been killed, so they ran away from the fronts of war. Pickthall translates wa al-
rasûlu yad‘ûkum fî ukhrâkum as “while the messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight).” But to
show his confusion about the term ukhrâkum, he adds “to fight” in parenthesis. Yusuf Ali and Dr. Mohsin
translate ukhrâkum as “back,” believing that it means: “and the Messenger in your rear was calling you
back.” Shâkir ignores the term and translates it as: “and the Apostle was calling you from your rear.” I
checked all ummahât al-tafâsîr, as well as all major Shi’î tafâsîr, and to my surprise, no mufassir has noted
any resemblance or relation betwee ukhrâ and al-âkhira. Lisân al-‘Arab defines ukhrâ as “one of the two
things,” and al-âkhira from the same root meaning “the one that comes after.” Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ defines
al-âkhira as “the enduring home” coming from the Qur’ânic âyah 40:39 that reads: “O my people! Lo! this
life of the world is but a passing comfort, and lo! the Hereafter, that is the enduring home.” Based on the
vocabulary definition of al-ukhrâ, a possible tafsîr of the âyah would be: “you climbed the hill [and ran
away to save your worldly life] … while the messenger was calling you to your eternal life in the
hereafter.” This possibility not only confirms the contextless and timeless mission of rasûl, but also sounds
more imaginable in a battle with deafening noises of hundreds of horses, loud yellings of wariors, and
screachy songs of women on both sides of the fighting parties, who sometimes used to come to battles with
their musical instruments to encourage their men. Mufassirûn do not explain how in such circomstances
and while the climbing rocks of the Uhud mountain, Muslim warriors were supposed to recognize the
Prophet’s voice, and hear his physical call asking them to go back to the war front. For the definitions of al-
ukhrâ and al-âkhira in Lisân al-‘Arab, see Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under akhara, available online at
http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp (consulted on May 10th
2012). For the definitions of al-âkhira in Al-Qâmus
al-Muḥîṭ, see Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb al-Fayrûzâbâdî, Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ. 3rd
ed. Cairo: al-Hiy’at al-
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
152
مون بٱلل مين وما لكم ل ت تم م قكم إن ـو موا برب كم وقد أخذ مي م لت و ول يد وٱلر
What aileth you that ye believe not in Allâh, when the messenger calleth
you to believe in your Lord, and He hath already made a covenant with
you, if ye are believers?154
(57:8)
f) The Qur’ân is crystal clear about the fact that Muḥammad as a rasûl does not have any
duty more than transferring the divine message. While addressing him as al-rasûl, the
Qur’ân orders him to abandon the result of his mission into God’s hands.155
On the
contrary, while addressing Muḥammad as al-nabî, the Qur’ân orders him a variety of
actions on a wide spectrum of human acts ranging from simple preaching to marrying, or
leading battles. Here are three examples for the “no action” nature of his messengerhood
followed by three different examples of the “action required” nature of his prophethood:
غ ـو ول إل ٱلب ى ٱلر ا يعم ما تبدون وما تكتمون م وٱلل
The duty of the messenger is only to convey (the message). Allâh knoweth
what ye proclaim and what ye hide. (5:99)
ول وأطيعوا ٱلر أطيعوا ٱلل تم ق ا حم يڪم م و يه ما حم وإن إن تولوا إنما
غ ٱلمبين طيعوه تهتدوا ت ـو ول إل ٱلب ى ٱلر وما
Say: Obey Allâh and obey the messenger. But if ye turn away, then (it is)
for him (to do) only that wherewith he hath been charged, and for you (to
do) only that wherewith ye have been charged. If ye obey him, ye will go
aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the
Miṣriyyah al-‘Ammah li al-Kitâb, 1979, under akhara, available online at http://archive.org/details/211208
(consulted on May 10th
2012).
154
This âyah confirms Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s theory about the twin aspect/nature of da‘wa. Here the messenger
calls people to believe in their lord, so the da‘wa is to the lordness of God as Ṭabâṭabâ’î rightly raises the
issue.
155
This split between the necessities of action for nabî and those of no-action for rasûl can of course
cause confusion when both roles are played by the same person. Every time the “no action” nature of the
messengerhood of the Prophet seems to oppose the “action required” nature of his prophethood, the Qur’ân
pulls him back and points out the distinction. For example 26:3-4 announces:
It may be that thou tormentest thyself (O Muḥammad) because they believe not. If We
will, We can send down on them from the sky a portent so that their necks would remain
bowed before it.
Or 10:99-100 says:
And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst
thou (Muḥammad) compel men until they are believers? It is not for any soul to believe
save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
153
message) plainly. (24:54)
ن قبكم أمم م بوا قد ڪذ غ ٱلمبين وإن تكذ ـو ول إل ٱلب ى ٱلر وما
But if ye deny, then nations have denied before you. The messenger is
only to convey (the message) plainly. (29:18)
ى ونور ة يا هد و إنا أنزلا ٱلتور ـو ب موا لذين هادوا وٱلر يون وٱلحبار يحكم با ٱلبيون ٱلذين أ
يه شداء وڪانوا ب ٱلل ـو ت تحفظوا من بما ٱ
Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the
prophets who surrendered (unto Allâh) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and
the priests (judged) by such of Allah’s Scripture as they were bidden to
observe, and thereunto were they witnesses…156
(5:44)
م ي ظ فقين وٱ ـو هد ٱلڪفار وٱلم ـو أيا ٱلبى ج ـو هم جهم ي و وبئس ٱلمصير ومأو
O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh
with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end. (9:73)
تى ءاتيت أجورهن وما مكت ي ـو ٱل أزوتج ا ل أيها ٱلبى إنا أح ـو ي ي ا أاء ٱلل مم مي
O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou
hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those
whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war… (33:50)
While the Qur’ânic “leave-the-result-to-God” nature of messengerhood turns the rasûl’s
mission into a “beyond-time-and-space-call,” with no responsibility for the result, the
156 This âyah talks about all prophets. The idea of al-ḥukm (judgement, decision or command) coming
with al-nabuwwah (prophecy) and al-kitâb (the Book) has been presented in the Qur’ân several times. For
some very clear instances, see 3:79; 6:89; 45:16. On the contrary, no Qur’ânic âyah offers al-ḥukm to al-
rasûl. The only two exceptions might be found in 24:48, 51 where the Qur’ân says:
And they say: We believe in Allah and the messenger, and we obey; then after that a
faction of them turn away. Such are not believers. And when they appeal unto Allah and
His messenger to judge between them, lo! a faction of them are averse; But if right had
been with them they would have come unto him willingly. Is there in their hearts a
disease, or have they doubts, or fear they lest Allah and His messenger should wrong
them in judgment? Nay, but such are evil-doers. The saying of (all true) believers when
they are called unto Allah and His messenger to judge between them is only that they say:
We hear and we obey. And such are the successful. He who obeyeth Allah and His
messenger, and feareth Allah, and keepeth duty (unto Him): such indeed are the
victorious. (24:47:52)
Here, 24:47 is the beginning of a new subject in the sûrah 24. It starts with a direct citation repeating a
claim declared by the Prophet’s entourage. The term al-rasûl (short version of rasûl al-Allâh) is the way
new Muslims used to call the Prophet, and it appears in that direct citation. The Qur’ân reacts to them using
the same term in the answer.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
154
Qur’ânic “action based” nature of prophethood puts an emphasis on the worldly nature of
the nabî’s mission within the contexts of time and space, and considers him fully
responsible for his deeds. This nabî’s responsibility for his actions is confirmed by the
fact that on a few occasions, the Qur’ân blames some prophets for deeds they have done,
and says that God forgives them. Here are two examples:
ذا من شيعتهۦ ـو ن أهها وجد يا رجين يقتتلن ه فة م ىو حين ٱلمدية ذا ودخ ـو وه
هۦ دو ى ٱل من ه ٱلذى من شيعتهۦ ـو تغ زه ٱ هۦ و دو يه ذى من ىو قضىو ذا من ۥ مو ـو قال ه
ن ـو يط ٱلش م فر لى غفر له إنه إن ى ظمت نفسى ٱ بين قال ر م ض م
دو ۥ هو ٱلغفور إنه ۥ ۥ
حيم ٱلر
And he [Moses] entered the city at a time of carelessness of its folk, and he
found therein two men fighting, one of his own caste, and the other of his
enemies; and he who was of his caste asked him for help against him who
was of his enemies. So Moses struck him with his fist and killed him. He
said: This is of the devil’s doing. Lo! he is an enemy, a mere misleader. He
said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged my soul, so forgive me. Then He
forgave him. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. (28:15-6)
ذبين ـو ٱلذين صدقوا وتعم ٱلك لم أنت لهم حتىو يتبين ل فا ٱلل
Allâh forgive thee (O Muḥammad)! Wherefor didst thou grant them leave
[the battle] ere those who told the truth were manifest to thee and thou
didst know the liars? (9:43)
g) One last argument to support the idea of rasûl being an intermediary who repeats
God’s unique and timeless message to humanity is the special relationship between the
two concepts of rasûl and hudâ (guidance). The concept of hudâ is presented from the
very beginning of the Qur’ân (2:2), and is repeated hundreds of time throughout its text.
2:2 reads:
ب ل ريب ـو ٱلڪت متقين يه تل ى ل هد
This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who
ward off (evil) [those who fear God].
In his tafsîr on 2:2, Ṭabâṭabâ’î mentions that since the âyah introduces the Qur’ân as a
guidance for al-muttaqîn (those who fear God), it necessarily presents two guidances: a
pre-revelation guidance and a post-revelation guidance. To Ṭabâṭabâ’î, the first guidance
is rooted in human’s fiṭra by which all humans are born with a need to look for the truth,
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
155
as well as a capacity to see God behind worldly matters. The good function of fiṭra
enables human to become muttaqî by finding and fearing God with no need for any
revelation. Then the second guidance is offered to those who have answered to their
fiṭra’s call (regardless of their level of taqwâ). This second guidance covers humans’ first
guidance as clothes cover their bodies with shapes, colors and textures. Thus the
revelation has two main consecutive goals, first it aims to wake up the fiṭra that dwells in
human being between the mind and the heart, and second to guide an awaken fiṭra to al-
ṣirâṭ al-mustaqîm.157
Every time the Qur’ân mentions a “caller” to this hudâ, the term
rasûl or a verb derivated from rasala is used exclusively. Here are three examples:
ول ا ر بشر أن قالوا أبعث ٱلل إل موا إ جاءهم ٱلهدىو وما مع ٱلاس أن ي
And aught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came
unto them save that they said: Hath Allâh sent a mortal as (His)
messenger? (17:94)
ول إل بسان قومهۦ ليبي ن لهم ا من ر من يشاء ويهدى من يشاء وما أر ٱلل وهو ٱلعزيز يض
ٱلحكيم
And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he
might make (the message) clear for them. Then Allâh sendeth whom He
will astray, and guideth whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Wise. (14:4)
وله ر ون ۥ بٱلهدىو ودين ٱلح ليظهره هو ٱلذى أر ره ٱلمشر هۦ ولو ين ى ٱلد ۥ
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of
Truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much
idolaters may be averse. (9:33, also repeated in 48:28 and in 61:9)
As it is clear in 14:4, to the Qur’ân, this guidance has the same no-responsible-for-the-
result nature than the rasûl’s da‘wa. Many other Qur’ânic âyahs clarify that God guides
whom he wills and leads astray whom he wills.158
The Qur’ân goes further and tells the
Prophet that as rasûl, he has neither power nor control over the result of his
messengerhood mission. Here are three examples:
يهدى من يشاء ڪن ٱلل ـو هم ول و هد ي ليس
157 See al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 2:2, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on May 6th
2012).
158
For some examples, see 2:26,142; 5:51; 6:88; 30:29; 35:8; 39:23; 42:13.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
156
The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muḥammad), but Allâh guideth
whom He will… (2:272)
من يشا أمن زي ن له يض ا إن ٱلل مهۦ رءاه حس وء م ۥ ي ل تذهب نفسدى من يشاء ء وي
يم بما يصعون إن ٱلل حسرت
Is he, the evil of whose deeds is made fairseeming unto him so that he
deemeth it good, (other than Satan's dupe)? Allâh verily sendeth whom He
will astray, and guideth whom He will; so let not thy soul expire in
sighings for them. Lo! Allâh is Aware of what they do! (35:8)
دى من يشاء ي كن ٱلل ـو دى من أحببت ول ل ت م بٱلمهتدين إن وهو أ
Lo! thou (O Muḥammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allâh guideth
whom He will. And He is best aware of those who walk aright.
It is not insignificant to mention that unlike naba’a, the different
Qur’ânic usages of the verbal forms of rasala do not seem to present a
meaningful point other than their common and clear vocabulary meaning
“to send.” In the Qur’ân, God sends down a variety of “things” including
supra natural beings such as his spirit (19:17), angels (22:75), and satans
(19:83); natural events such as rain (6:6) and winds (25:48); his wrath and
punishment upon non-believers through flood (34:16), fire (55:35),
attacking birds (105:3), mighty shout (54:31), and thunder-bolts (13:13);
his peace and reassurance upon believers (48:26); and of course humans as
his messengers (4:64). Also the Qur’ân uses the different verbal forms of
rasala to narrate stories in which humans including prophets (12:12),
kings (26:53), or groups of people (12:19) send one person (12:45) or
some people (7:134) on a mission.
2.7 inzâl versus tanzîl
In the Qur’ân, the trilateral root of n, z, l (nazala literally meaning to descend or to reveal
from above) appears 293 times in 12 different derived forms. Most of its appearances are
under its second verbal form inzâl (appearing 90 times), and its fourth verbal form tanzîl
(appearing 79 times).159
Both inzâl and tanzîl refer to the “descent” of the Qur’ân from
above by the process of revelation. The dictionary of Lisân al-’Arab defines nuzûl (the
verbal noun of nazala) as “appearance.” Its author Ibn Manẓûr first cites the great
grammarian Sibawayh (140-180H) who says: “Abu ‘Amru makes a distinction between
159 The other Qur’ânic appearances of nazala are the following: six times as the first verbal form (nazala),
seven times as the fifth verbal form (tanazzalat), twice as the noun manâzil, eight times as the noun nuzûl,
and once as the noun nazlat.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
157
anzalat and nazzalat, but does not mention the point of difference.”160
Then he cites the
famous Arab linguistic Abu al-Ḥasan (d. 240H) who says: “I do not see any difference
between anzalat [the past tense of inzâl] and nazzalat [the past tense of tanzîl] except that
tanzîl presents a more frequent act of appearance.”161
Ibn Manẓûr also cites Suyûṭî who
mentions that Abu ‘Amru believed in the existence of a nuance between inzâl and tanzîl
but did not explain what it is. In a short definition, Ibn Manẓûr says: “tanzîl is tartîb [to
put in order].”162
Al-Jawharî often does not define terms with a given definition. Instead
he gives examples of their usages in jâhili poetry. In the case of inzâl and tanzîl, he gives
several examples of the usages of different forms of nazala in jâhili poetry, but does not
present any poems either for inzâl or for tanzîl. Instead he repeats after Ibn Manẓûr and
briefly mentions: “al-tanzîl is also al-tartîb.” He defines anzala by bringing it under al-
nuzala, which he translates as “man’s water [semen],” and by doing so, he politely and
indirectly defines it as “ejaculation.”163
Fayrûzâbâdî defines nazala as “appearance” and
mentions tanzîl and inzâl one after the other as examples for “appearance.” He briefly
writes: munzal [the objective noun form of inzâl] is like mujmal [the objective noun form
of jamala meaning “abstract”].164
However, the most elaborated definitions of inzâl and
tanzîl can be found in Ibn Fâris’ work. He mentions that the meaning of nazala reveals an
act of hubûṭ (the descent), and represents a certainty about the reality of its happening
(wuqû‘ihî). He also mentions that tanzîl holds the meaning of ordering things and putting
them in their places.165
This last definition is what most mufassirûn have considered as the meaning of
nazala and the point of difference between inzâl and tanzîl. For example, in their tafâsîr
on Sûrah Al-Qadr, most mufassirûn have preferred the interpretation according to which
160 Ibn Manẓûr, Lisan al-‘Arab, under nazala, available online at www.baheth.info (consulted on May 16
th
2012).
161
Ibid.
162
Ibid.
163
Abu Naṣr Ismâ‘îl b. Ḥimâd al-Jawharî, Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha. 4th
ed. 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-‘Ilm li al-
Malâ’în, under nazala, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=1140&cat=16 (consulted on May 16th
2012).
164
Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb al-Fayrûzâbâdî, Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ. 3rd
ed. Cairo: al-Hiy’at al-Miṣriyyah al-
‘Âmmah li al-Kitâb, 1979, under nazala, available online at http://archive.org/details/211208 (consulted on
May 18th
2012).
165
See Abu al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad b. Fâris, Mu‘jam Maqâyîs al-Lugha. 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1979,
under nazala, available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3144 (consulted on May 16th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
158
the Qur’ân, as a whole, descended instantaneously and revealed at once during one night
called laylat al-qadr (the Night of Power).166
Another possibility of understanding inzâl
as a reference to the revelation of the first few âyahs of the Qur’ân during the Night of
Power has also been mentioned by some mufassirûn, but the majority of mufassirûn from
different madhâhib have, to a certain extent, preferred the first possibility. Many
mufassirûn such as Ibn Sulaymân, Ṭabarânî, Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî, Qurṭubî, wâḥidî,
Mâwardî, Ibn Kathîr, Râzî, Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib, Hawârî, Mâturîdî, A‘qam, Fayrûzâbâdî,
Ṭûsî, Suyûṭî, Shûkânî, ‘Aṭfîsh, and Jazâ’irî believe in the inzâl of the whole Qur’ân to al-
samâ’ al-dunyâ (the sky of this world) or to al-bayt al-‘izzah (The House of Glory)167
,
and then its revelation through tanzîl to the Prophet over twenty-three years.168
A
minority of mufassirûn, mostly belonging to, but not limited to, Sufî schools, such as
Muḥyuddîn ibn ‘Arabî (558-638H) and Sulṭân Muḥammad al-Janâbadhî (1251-1337H),
have preferred a sudden descent of the actual Qur’ân that we have in hand to the heart of
the Prophet over one night.169
However, by far, the most detailed discussion is that of
166 Mufassirûn are not certain about the exact time of this night. The consensus is on the fact that it has
been within the month of ramaḍân, and that every year, on the same night, the whole Qur’ân descended
into the Prophet’s heart. The 17th
, 19th
, 21st, 23
rd and 27
th of ramaḍân have all been proposed as possibilities
for the exact day of Laylat- al-Qadr.
167
Some mufassirûn, such as al-Qumi, have used the term al-bayt al-ma’mûr (lit. the built house) to refer
to the same concept as al-bayt al-‘izza.
168
Ṭabarî mentions a ḥadîth with full isnâd having al-Sha’bî as its first narrator in which al-Sha’bî says
that the Sûrah Al-Qadr means that the beginning of the Qur’ân was revealed during the Night of Power.
Besides mentioning it, Ṭabarî does not give any importance to this ḥadîth and keeps silent about its veracity
or falsehood. While most mufassirûn ignore it, a few of them, such as Zamakhsharî, Qurṭubî, Râzî, and
Ṭûsî, follow Ṭabarî and briefly mention this ḥadîth from al-Sha’bî with no isnâd. None of them seems to be
interested in discussing it. A few others, such as Ṭabâṭabâ’î, downgrade this ḥadîth by mentioning its
content in passive form and claryfing that this saying “is not worth any attention” (lâ yu’ba bihi). However,
although Bayḍâwî does not mention this ḥadîth, he prefers the possibility of the descent to be at the
beginning of the Qur’ân, and mentions it as “the meaning” of inzâl. Then he writes that the other
interpretation, that is, that the descent of the Qur’ân from the sky into this world in one night, might also be
correct (yasih an yaqûl). Surprizingly, most modern mufassirûn prefer the descent to be at the beginning of
the Qur’ân, into the heart of the Prophet, as the meaning of inzâl in sûrah 97. Some others, such as Sayyid
Qutb and Ibn ‘Âshûr, consider it to be the only possible meaning of inzâl. They keep silent about any other
possibilities. Others still, such as Shanqîṭî and Ṭanṭâwî (d. 1431H), prefer it, while also mentioning the
other possibility discussed by classical mufassirûn. None of the above-mentioned modern mufassirûn cites
the concerned ḥadîth.
169
In his book translated from French and entitled: The History of Islamic Philosophy, the French
philosopher and islamisit Henry Corbin explains this Sufî opinion according to which the whole Qur’ân has
been sent down and revealed into the heart of the Prophet in the Night of Power. See Henry Corbin, The
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
159
Ṭabâṭabâ’î who subdivides the descent of the Qur’ân into two main stages and discusses
the rational feasibility of inzâl.170
In his tafsîr on 2:185, he briefly mentions the two
above-mentioned possibilities being the inzâl of the first few âyahs of the Qur’ân, or the
inzâl of the whole Qur’ân to the sky of this world, but criticises both possibilities and
accuses them to have rational and textual weaknesses. Then he suggests his theory of
inzâl according to which the Qur’ân has been revealed twice to the Prophet: once in “an
unchangeable, concrete, and incumbent” form, and the second time as “scattered,
detailed, and changeable” âyahs that were subject to change by abrogation or by other
forms of modification. To Ṭabâṭabâ’î, what was revealed to the heart of the Prophet on
the Night of Power is the inzâl of that concrete and unchangeable Qur’ân, and what was
revealed to him throughout 23 years of his life is the detailed and changeable form of the
Qur’ân.171
I suggest that this meaning of inzâl is in direct link with the messengerhood
meanings in the Qur’ân while tanzîl includes the prophethood messages.
Among the most recent works on the question of inzâl and tanzîl is the article of
Abdollâh Javâdî Âmolî (1933C.E.- ) entitled Nozûl-e daf’î va tadrîji-ye Qor’ân (The
Instantaneous and Gradual Descents of the Qur’ân). In this article, Javâdî Amolî expands
Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s theory and writes:
Although his research [Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s interpretation of 2:158] corresponds
well with some Qur’ânic proofs, and can be supported by some aḥâdîth,
the descent of the whole Qur’ân over the Night of Power cannot have been
History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Kegan Paul International, 1993 (pp.12-4). In his tafsîr on 97:1,
Qurṭubî indirectly refers to this Sufî opinion. He writes:
Al-Mâwardî cites Ibn ‘Abbâs who says that the Qur’ân was descended in the month of
ramaḍân, during the Night of Power, a blessed night, as a whole [text] from Allâh, from
al-lawḥ al-maḥfûẓ [the Preserved Scripturum] to al-safarah al-kirâm [the Glorified
Messengers] in the sky of the world. Then, they recited it to Jibrîl in twenty years, and
Jibrîl recited it to the Prophet, Allâh’s Peace be upon him, in twenty years. Ibn ‘Arabî
Said: “This is false, there is no intermediary between Jibrîl and Allâh, and no
intermediary between Jibrîl and the Prophet, God’s salutation be on him.”
Given that neither this ḥadîth of Ibn ‘Abbâs exists in Mâwardî’s tafsîr on sûrah 97, nor can Ibn ‘Arabî’s
reaction to it be found in his tafsîr on the same sûrah, one wonders what were Qurṭubî’s sources. Qurṭubî
does not mention any reference either. See Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Anṣârî al-Qurṭubî, Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm
al-Qur’ân. 2nd
ed. 20 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, 1964, under 97:1, available online at
http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/20855n (consulted on May 16th
2012).
170
Usually Ṭabâṭabâ’î has an inclusivist approach, and includes different possibilities. In this case, he
prefers a mere rational discussion, and does not give heed to other tafâsîr.
171
See al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 2:185, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan (consulted on Aug. 23rd
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
160
downright concrete, because the Qur’ân itself says [in 44:4] that during
that night all divine commands are made clear … So, the Night of Power is
a night for measuring and detailing, and this cannot be in harmony with a
mere concrete non detailed [form of the Qur’ân] … It has been mentioned
before that the Qur’ân has three different levels of high, middle and low.
The higher level of the Qur’ân is um al-kitâb (Mother of the Book) which
dwells with God and has been revealed to the Prophet during his ascention
[to the throne of God, and] … angels, even Jibrîl do not have access to this
level … The middle level of the Qur’ân is what is in angels hands … and
has been revealed to the heart of the Prophet on the Night of Power, and
the lower level of the Qur’ân is what has been revealed throught 23 years
of the Prophet’s life … [This level] is limited to concepts and words.172
These tafâsîr of inzâl and tanzîl have been discussed and studied by many Western
scholars.173
An important aspect of inzâl that has particularly been of interest for some
Western scholars is the conflict/controversy between the occasions of revelation, as
historical time bound matters of fact, with the descent of the whole Qur’ân at the
beginning of the Prophet Muḥammad’s mission, as a text that includes references to those
yet unhappened events. This controversy, of course, has been noticed by mufassirûn
themselves, but their answer to this problem is no more than repeating their conviction on
the sudden descent of the Qur’ân to the sky of the world (or to the House of Glory). Even
those who have preferred the meaning of inzâl being the descent of the Qur’ân to the
heart of the Prophet, do not throw any more argument to solve the controversy between
their choice of meaning for inzâl with the question of asbâb al-nuzûl. Unfortunately,
most Western scholars simply repeat what has been already said by mufassirûn and do
not show any interest in surpassing the descriptive level. Those few who try to shed some
light on the problem are not more successful than those who simply repeat after the
mufassirûn. For example, while focusing on this problem, Madigan cites Ibn Kathîr’s and
Qurṭubî’s tafâsîr about inzâl, and ignores all other possibilities discussed by other
mufassirûn. He sums tafâsîr up by writing:
The commentators can, of course, maintain that it is not the verse itself
that is occasioned or caused but the actual sending down of that verse,
172 Abdollâh Javâdî Âmolî, “Nozûl-e daf’i va tadrîji-ye Qor’ân.” Tabnak e-newspaper of Aug. 9
th 2012: no
page number, available online at http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/263859/ (consulted on Aug. 23rd
2012).
173
Stefan Wild’s scholarly works on inzâl and tanzîl are probably the most detailed Western scholarly
studies on this subject matter. See Stefan Wild ed., The Qur’ân as Text. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996 (pp. 137-
53).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
161
which itself is preexistent. Even so, they are still implicitly recognyzing
that the process of revelation is a divine response elicited by human word
and action. Over against this, however, a community that has gradually
come to see its recitations as a codified canonical text cannot help but also
recognyzing the legitimacy of the “jumlatan wâḥidatan [the Qur’ân as a
whole] challenge.” If the text of the Qur’ân is, as they have come to
believe, the eternal and preexistent speech of God, then surely it should be
able to be displayed all at once… Thus, to answer the jumlatan wâḥidatan
challenge, the tradition patches together in varying ways isolated parts of
the text in an attempt to outline a coherent schema that could reconcile a
pre-existent canon with what was clearly an ad rem mode of revelation.
The Qur’ân is presented as already complete in the realm of eternity; the
text is preserved on a heavenly tablet (Q 85:22) and transmitted to Gabriel,
who in turn parcels it out to Muḥammad according to the situation in
which he finds himself.174
Then Madigan uses Paul J. Griffiths’ hermeneutical theory on “the completeness of the
text” according to which “One can distinguish four stages in the life of a text:
composition, display, storage and redisplay”175
trying to show how the piecemeal nature
of the revelation to the Prophet does not, in any way, make the revealed âyahs particles of
an incomplete text. He aims to solve the problem of the controversy between the two
concepts of inzâl and asbâb al-nuzûl by wiping out what most mufassirûn have
mentioned as the meaning of inzâl reductively describing them as “guardians” of the
Qur’ân as a corpus. He concludes:
Each unit of revelation is complete; what was taking place in
Muḥammad’s ministry was not the gradual and piecemeal display of a
previously composed text –though that is how the tradition would later
come to see it– but rather the display of divine utterances composed by
God to address particular occasions (jawâban li-qawlihim, as the
commentators would say) … When the Messenger died, however, the
initial moments of this divine address ceased and it became clear that no
one would succeed him in this prophetic role. The utterances were
eventually collected and canonized; they became a corpus. The
commentators, guardians of that corpus, sought to show that it was
composed and had existed as a corpus from all eternity. They did this, as
we have seen, by making a case for its having been eternally displayed and
stored.176
174 Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image, 67-8.
175
Ibid.
176
Ibid., 70.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
162
Somewhat, Madigan’s solution oversimplifies the fact that the exponential growth in
tafâsîr over the first few centuries of Islamic history includes a variety of perspectives
among mufassirûn, some of whom fit his description and others not, as exemplified
above. Greater sensitivity to the complex processes in the hermeneutics of reception of a
sacred text, in this case the Qur’ân, is necessary.177
At the end, despite his efforts,
Madigan does not seem to solve the problem of controversy between inzâl and asbâb al-
nuzûl while respecting what the greatest majority of mufassirûn have believed about the
meaning of inzâl.
Another solution to the problem has been presented by Muhammad Shahrur.178
On the one hand, as mentioned before, in his controversial book Al-Kitâb wal-Qur’ân, he
presents a new subdivision of the Qur’ânic text into Messengeric and prophetic, and
believes that any Qur’ânic issue must be re-studied and re-understood in the light of this
subdivision. On the other hand, his approach is based on a rereading of the Qur’ân, as if
the Prophet just died and left for us (as first readers in the dawn of the third millenium)
what we have in hand as the result of the revelation. These two together, as Shahrur
clarifies it, necessarily call for a re-interpretation of the Qur’ân as a two faceted text
within the contexts of modernity and improvement of human’s knowledge. Andreas
Christman carefully studies Shahrur’s revolutionary approach and explains how Shahrur
sees the questions of inzâl and tanzîl. He writes:
As in many modernist attempts to reconceptualize the Qur’ânic text, the
issue of its revelation is central to Shahrour’s new model of the Qur’ân’s
nature, structure, and function … The same three exegetical operations
(discussed above) are again applied in challenging the traditional
understanding of revelation.179
First, Shahrour does not accept synonymity
177 See, for example, Jeffrey L. Sammons, “Problems of Heine Reception: Some Considerations.”
Monatshefte, vol. 73, No. 4 (Winter 1981): 383-391.
178
In this thesis, I use the spelling of “Shahrur” because that is how his name appears on his books and on
his website. See http://www.shahrour.org/book_english.pdf (consulted on May 17th
2012). Anywhere cited
in a direct citation, I have respected the spelling chosen by the author of the cited text.
179
According to Christman, these three operations are:
First, Shahrour applies al-Jurjânî’s principle of non-synonymity (ghayr tarâduf) in
poetical expressions to the Qur’ânic text… Second, Shahrour rejects the idea of
‘atomization’ (ta’diya), but interprets individual verses of the Qur’ân on the assumption
that they belong to organic single units within the overall larger unit of al-Kitâb … Third,
Shahrour applies another principle of al-Jurjâni’s poetical analysis, which is that of
‘composition’ (al-nazm).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
163
between the two terms inzâl and tanzîl, which are commonly used to
describe the process of the Qur’ân’s ‘coming down’ as revelation to the
Prophet Muḥammad. Second, he asserts that the distinction between the
two terms is based on the division of the text into many variant sections,
which differ in theme and status, with its main division between verses of
prophethood and verses of messengerhood. Third, he establishes this
distinction by looking at linguistic composition, indexing all the references
to both words in the Qur’ân, and comparing the semantical nature of the
difference between the second form of the verb nazala (tanzîl) and the
fourth form (inzâl). By analogy with other verbs which imply processes of
communication, e.g. ballagha (2nd form)/ ablagha (4th form), Shahrour
assigns to the fourth form anzala the delivery of a message by which its
reception by all intended addressees is uncertain, while its reception is
categorically implied with the usage of the second form nazzala.180
Again like Madigan, it seems that Shahrur reacts to the problem of inzâl by refusing the
classical tafâsîr of inzâl. To justify his conviction he gives the example of media and
presents the following model:
Phase 1: al-Ja‘l (transformation)
Football match in Mexico between Argentina and Brazil.
The live action is filmed by cameras and then sent out into the world;
sound and pictures are transformed into waves.
Phase 2: al-Tanzîl
Waves that transport sound and pictures from Mexico into the world.
It happens in the air and completely outside the human senses.
Phase 3: al-Inzâl
The process by which the TV/Aerial receives the waves and transforms
them into sound and picture.
The result is a form of pictures and sounds that are perceivable by the
human senses.
Phase 4: Perception
A viewer in Damascus can follow the football match in Mexico through
his senses. The football match enters the viewer’s knowledge.181
See Andreas Christman, ““The Form Is Permanent, but the Content Moves”: The Qur’ânic Text and Its
Interpretation(S) in Mohamad Shahrour’s ‘Al-Kitâb wal Qur’ân.’” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, vol.
43, Issue 2 (2003): 143-172 (pp. 154-6).
180
Ibid., 159.
181
This model is a copy of what Shahrur draws in his recent book. See Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and
Critical Reason, 154, available online at www.shahrour.org (consulted on May 17th
2012).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
164
As Christman rightly mentions:
The point Shahrour wants to stress is that it is possible to distinguish
between ways of communication which either happen objectively and
beyond human perception (the transfer of sound and pictures via waves
from Mexico to Syria), or occur explicitly for the sensory perception of
human beings (the reconversion of the waves back into acoustic and optic
signals for the reception of the TV viewers). The term al-tanzîl is assigned
to the process of objective, other-human communication (reception by
human beings is uncertain, impossible, or unintended), while the term al-
inzâl reflects the ‘process of changing a matter outside the human mind
from something unperceived to something perceived’.182
Shahrur relates his theory of inzâl and tanzîl to his subdivision of the Qur’ân into
messengerhood and prophethood parts, and believes that the object of inzâl is al-qur’ân,
which contains al-mutashâbihât or prophethood âyahs, and the object of tanzîl is umm al-
kitâb, which contains al-muḥkamât or the messengerhood âyahs. By doing so, Shahrur
denies any historicity to al-qur’ân and believes in the temporality of umm al-kitâb. In his
most recent book, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason, he extends this dual nature
of the revelation to the sunnah of the Prophet and states that the sunnah of the Prophet
must also be divided into two sunnahs: first al-sunnah al-rasûliyyah (the messengerhood
sunnah), which is a “culturally and historically conditioned”183
phenomenon lacking “the
universality of Allâh’s Book,”184
and second, al-sunnah al-nabawiyyah (the prophethood
sunnah), which contains “the themes of universal—and sometimes, historical—‘truth and
falsehood.’”185
In other words, to Shahrur, while the form of the sunnah of Muḥammad
as a messenger must be perceived within its historical 7th
century boundaries, the content
of the sunnah of Muḥammad as a prophet goes beyond its contextual boundaries. Shahrur
explains that messengeric part of the Qur’ân and the sunnah includes seven
subcategories: 1) al-ḥudûd bi mâ fihâ al-‘ibâdât (juridic conducts including rituals); 2)
waṣâyâ (advices); 3) aḥkâm marḥaliyyah (social or individual conducts that have been
changed, modified or abbrogated through the revelation); 4) aḥkâm ḍarfiyyah (social or
182 Christman, ““The Form Is Permanent, but the Content Moves,” 160.
183
Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason, 72, available online at www.shahrour.org
(consulted on May 17th
2012).
184
Ibid.
185
Ibid.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
165
individual conducts that are as fixed vessels); 5) ta‘limât ‘aâmmah (general instructions
for all Muslims);186
6) ta‘limât khâṣṣah (specific instructions for Muḥammad);187
and 7)
al-mamnû‘ât (prohibitions )188
that require ijtihâd.189
Then he explains that the prophetic
part of the Qur’ân and the sunnah answers “the essential questions of human existence:
about life and death, about the beginning and the end of the world, hell and paradise, and
such.”190
He writes:
The book of prophethood deals with the reality of our objective existence;
it distinguishes between true and false, real and illusory; it possess the
quality of being ‘ambiguous’ (mutashâbih), and it is located in the textual
(or existential) subcategories of al-qur’ân and sab‘ al-mathânî. The book
of messengerhood, that is, the book of conduct, possesses the quality of
being unambiguous or ‘definite’ (muḥkam) and is located in the umm al-
kitâb, the ‘mother of the book’.191
Although Shahrur’s rational efforts to bring coherency into a complex inherited tradition
is admirable in many ways, his theory of messengerhood versus prophethood suffers
from several problems.
First, in order to understand Shahrur, one must know his personal terminology,
and accept the definitions that he gives to many existing popular terms. Most of these
definitions have their roots neither in the classical Arabic dictionaries, nor in the corpus
186 For this category he gives the example of women’s hijâb.
187
For this category he gives the example of the exclusive divine permission about the Prophet’s number
of wives.
188
He gives the example of alcohol, gambling, and fortune telling.
189
Shahrur, Al-Kitâb wa al-Qur’ân, The beginning of the 2nd
chapter, available online at
www.shahrour.org/ (consulted on May 17th
2012). In his other book, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical
Reason, he mentions these seven categories in a different order and with a couple of major differences. He
writes:
We have established seven subcategories of definite verses [belonging to Muḥammad’s
messengerhood]:1. Rituals; 2. The limits of God (al-ḥudûd), defining ways of non-ritual
worship (al-‘ibâdât); 3. General ethics (al-furqân), moral codes given as commandments,
and absolute taboos (al-muḥarramât); 4. Temporary rules (only valid for Muḥammad’s
time); 5. Circumstantial rules (e.g., prohibition), only enforceable if a specific historical
situation emerges that is similar to the one prescribed in the Book; 6. General
notifications, nonbinding instructions in the Book introduced by the phrase ‘O you
Prophet!’ (e.g., instructions for the dress code of women); 7. Specific notifications,
likewise nonbinding as they were specifically and exclusively revealed for Muhammad’s
time (e.g., rules of behaviour for the Prophet’s wives).
See Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason, 125-6, available online at www.shahrour.org
(consulted on May 17th
2012).
190
Ibid., 73.
191
Ibid.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
166
of al-tafsîr. Thus, Shahrur’s innovative definitions are neither discussed, nor accepted by
any mufassir. It is not for nothing that at the end of his book, The Qur’ân, Morality and
Critical Reason, the editor Andreas Christman presents a glossary of terms with
Shahrur’s definitions for them. A glance at that glossary reveals to what extent Shahrur’s
world of tafsîr is directly opposed to the universe of al-Tafsîr. Here are a few examples:
al-qur’ân: The prophetical revelation. This is one part of the Book; it
belongs to Muḥammad’s prophethood.
al-qur’ân al-majîd: The glorious qur’ân. This is the fixed part of al-
qur’ân; it originated in the Tablet Preserved; it contains the general and
universal laws of all existence, e.g., of the creation (first explosion), the
laws of development, change, alteration, and destruction, including the
eschatological teachings of life after death, Hell and Paradise, etc.; these
laws are universal and unchangeable.
al-sab‘ al-mathânî: The seven of the recited that introduce chapters of the
Book. These are part of the Book, and part of the prophethood; they are in
quantity and quality on the same level as the qur’ân and as equally abstract
in information but not expressed in clear Arabic, rather in the form of
incomprehensible utterances, e.g., in the form of the seven openings of
some sûras (such as alif-lâm-mîm, etc.).
al-sunna: Muḥammad’s law. This contains Muḥammad’s application of al-
risâla and, hence, the umm al-kitâb during the seventh century on the
Arabian Peninsula; his interpretations are only applicable for the period in
which he lived, with the exception of the rituals that form the (trans-
historical) foundation of the ‘pillars of faith’ (arkân al-îmân).
al-tanzîl wa’l-inzâl wa’l-ja‘l: Objective revelation, transfer to the human
mind, and transformation. Al-tanzîl refers to the process of an objective
transport (of revelation) outside human consciousness; al-inzâl refers to
the transport (of the revelation) which enters human consciousness and
knowledge; al-ja‘l refers to the process of change in “Progressing”
(ṣayrûra): this could be a transformation from a nonperceptible format into
another nonperceptible format, or from a nonperceptible format into a
perceptible format (al-ja‘l + al-inzâl); the Book inseparably combines both
al-ja‘l and al-inzâl, whereas with the aḥkâm (legal rules) there is only a
combination of al-tanzîl and al-inzâl, but no transformation.
al-nisâ’: Women or those who come later. The term al-nisâ’ carries two
meanings: a) the partners of men, i.e., women (in this case it is the plural
of imra’a); and b) those who or that which come later (in this case it is the
plural of nasî’). In the latter meaning it may refer to what is most recent of
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
167
the delights of this world (i.e., the latest fashion); a desire for this is only
natural for all human beings.192
Second, as an engineer, Shahrur invents and manufactures formulaic expressions in
Arabic and gives them hermeneutical functions. Although charging terms with the
Qur’ânic concepts, and then making them in charge of the interpretation of the same text
has always had its undeniable place in the realm of tafsîr, this practice must happen
within the contexts of existing philological and exegetical activities. In other words, what
distinguishes the non-acceptable tafsîr bi al-ra’y or as McAuliffe calls it “the free play of
(arbitrary) personal opinion”193
from tafsîr bi al-ma’thûr, or as McAuliffe translates it,
“the interpretation by the received tradition”194
is that this latter 1) takes its authenticity
from a rational effort of mind, 2) linguistically follows a logical pattern within the
commonly used and accepted meanings of terms, 3) founds itself on the already existing
(popular or rare) activities of tafsîr, 4) builds and justifies its arguments and results, in
part, by a contextual Qur’ânic approach, and through a careful usage of ḥadîth.
McAuliffe presents Ṭabarî’s explanations about the problem of tafsîr bi al-ra’y by
writing: “In addition to linguistic and lexical considerations (such as the commonly
accepted “readings [qirâ’ât]” of the Qur’ân), al-Ṭabarî discusses the problematic status of
al-tafsîr bi al-ra’y, the objections of those who oppose all exegetical activity, and the
reputations of previous commentators, whether revered or denigrated in the passage of
time.”195
There is no doubt that Shahrur’s work reflects a high rational effort, but in the
process of his tafsîr, he does not seem to respect some of the above mentioned steps.
Thus, one might accuse him of committing tafsîr bi al-ra’y and imposing his personal
opinions on the Qur’ânic meanings and messages. It is as if Shahrur finds himself in front
of a complex divine image and/or message with hundreds of pieces (terms and
expressions). To Shahrur, as well as to many others, this image/message does not fit the
needs and necessities of todays’s modern life with its fast growing changes. To Shahrur,
192 Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason, 538, 542, 550, available online at
www.shahrour.org (consulted on May 18th
2012).
193
McAuliffe explains the conceptual background of tafsîr bi al-ra’y starting from the Prophet’s era and
going throughout the history of tafsîr. McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 20.
194
Ibid.
195
Ibid., 43.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
168
traditional mufassirûn cannot (or do not want to) help to solve this problem. So, he
decides to cover the existing pictures on some pieces of the puzzle by drawing new
pictures on them (throwing new meanings into them), adding some pieces (inventing
expressions), and re-arranging the puzzle presenting, this time, an image and/or message
that can better fit the modern life and its necessities. To have a sense of how far Shahrur
goes in inventing formulaic expressions, I give two examples from the above-mentioned
glossary. In the first example, Shahrur invents the new philosophical expression of jadal
halâk al-shay’ (the dialectic of destruction) as an explanation for the Qur’ânic concept of
tasbîḥ (glorification of Allâh). In the second example, Shahrur composes a new
expression by adding the transliteration of the English term “friend” to the Arabic
Qur’ânic term zawâj (marriage), and gives birth to the new concept of zawâj al-frind (the
marriage by friendship) as a subcategory for the Qur’ânic concept of mulk yamîn (slave).
By doing so, he aims to cover the controversial image of slavery in the Qur’ân with an
acceptable image of friendship in modern societies:
al-tasbîḥ “jadal halâk al-shay’”: Glorification and ‘the dialectics of
negation/destruction’ This is an internal dialectical movement that
contains a battle between two antagonistic elements in everything which
create constant change and development, as one thing may be destroyed
and reappear in another thing; such dialectics of a constant battle between
antagonistic elements guarantees progress; while we say ‘Glory be to God’
we acknowledge that He is beyond negation and change while everyone
else in existence changes and, thus, praises God. In other words: this is the
dialectics of the interpenetration of opposites and the negation of the
negation.196
‘ilâqat mulk al-yamîn: Partnership. This pertains to a voluntary
relationship between a man and woman who are both adults and compos
mentis, but who are not married and whose relationship is short-term but
of a sexual nature; there are several types of partnerhships, e.g., zawâj al-
mut‘a (temporary partnership) where the male partner provides for the
female partner; zawâj al-misyâr (controlled or guided partnership) where
the female partner has no right to demand such provision; and zawâj al-
frind (friendship) where there is mutual provision and care; all these types,
are not absolutely forbidden though they do not constitute marriage.197
196 Shahrur, The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason, 545, available online at www.shahrour.org
(consulted on May 18th
2012).
197
Ibid., 557.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
169
Third, in Shahrur’s thoughts, the boundaries between terms are sometime fade.
Consequently, the meanings that those terms refer to, become also ambiguous. A par
excellence example would be his usage of the very term of al-qur’ân. While in different
parts of his writings, Shahrur puts an emphasis on the fact that al-qur’ân is just one part
of the Book that Muḥammad received within his prophetic mission, and umm al-kitâb is
the other part that Muḥammad received within his messengeric mission, he shifts
between using the term al-qur’ân (with small “q”) as a reference to the result of the
Prophet’s prophetic mission, and the same term (always with small “q”) to refer to the
ensemble of the two prophetic and messengeric parts of the Book. On pages 127-28 of his
book in English, he states:
The qur’ân [the prophetic part of the revelation] consists, primarily, of
narratives about the truth and its laws in reality. But it also weaves these
together … with narratives (ḥadîth) about events that occurred in human
history … It thus links (qarana) the laws and events of objective reality
together with the laws and events of human history. In its capacity as the
source of both the cosmic and historical truth it confirms ‘what went with
it’ (alladhi baina yadaihi), that is, the umm al-kit’âb [or the messengeric
part of the revelation], and functions as the latter’s ultimate protector and
guardian.198
A few pages further he writes:
The qur’ân [the ensemble of both al-qur’ân and umm al-kitâb] was
revealed orally. It would have been possible to reveal it in written form (as
was done with Moses’ ‘tablets’), but its dhikr, its format of remembrance,
was in oral format which did not allow the unbelievers to touch Allâh’s
revelation ‘with their hands’ and deride its true identity … This implies
that today when we touch a copy of the qur’ân [the ensemble], we do not
actually touch the qur’ân [the ensemble] itself (the latter was revealed in
one impulse during the night of power and transformed into oral Arabic).
Instead, we have in front of us a copy of the qur’ân [the ensemble], a
parchment (qirṭâs) which we can ‘touch with our hands’. Thus, what we
touch is ink on paper, not the qur’ân [the ensemble] itself … after the
original qur’ân [the ensemble] had been hidden, it was first translated into
Arabic and then transferred by Jibrîl—orally, not in writing—to
Muḥammad. Those ‘who are clean to touch it’ (al-muṭahharûn) are in fact
angels processing al-tanzîl, since no human, ritually pure or impure, could
198 Ibid., 127-8.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
170
ever touch the original qur’ân [always the ensemble].199
The last but not least of the problems in Shahrur’ thought is his frequent shifts between
post-modernism and literalism. While one might consider some of his arguments as post-
modern approaches to the understanding of the Qur’ân, some other of his arguments can
only have sense within traditionalist-literalist approaches of tafsîr. Without adding any
comment, the following is one example of this strict literalist approach. He writes:
Since revelation cannot contradict reason we have to suspend criticism if
we come across a passage that apparently contradicts the laws of nature.
Verse 45 of Sûrah al-Furqân, for example, seems to suggest that there are
shadows that exist without light. According to what we currently know
about shadows’ dependency on light, such claims seem inaccurate. Since
we cannot say that the text is wrong (it never is!), we need to intensify the
study of light and eventually discover a type of shadow that is yet
unknown to us.200
The theory of double messages of the Qur’ân, as I explained it before, might offer a better
solution for the problems that Madigan and Shahrur try to solve with their respective
theories. Besides the seven textual above-mentioned Qur’ânic arguments (under sections
“a” to “g” of this chapter), the coexistence of inzâl and tanzîl, as two methods of
revelation mentioned in the Qur’ân, with respect to their definitions in ma‘âjim and
tafâsîr, support this theory of double messages of the Qur’ân. According to this theory,
inzâl refers to the act of revelation and/or procedure by which the messengeric part of the
Qur’ân (as a whole) has been revealed to the Prophet, and tanzîl refers to the revelation of
the prophetic âyahs throughtout the last 23 years of the Prophet Muḥammad’s life. Inzâl
is about concepts, and tanzîl is about instances for those concepts before or during the
prophet’s era. In opposition to Shahrur, I believe that inzâl transfers that universal trans-
historical message that has been repeatedly revealed to humans by the intermediary of
messengers throughout human history. The content of inzâl aims to shake and wake up
humans’ fiṭra, calling all of humanity to al-îmân, and encouraging its audience to
individually and collectively submit themselves to the Will of God. On the contrary,
tanzîl refers to “the process of revelation … [as] a divine response elicited by human
199 Ibid., 157.
200
Ibid., 149.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
171
word and action,”201
as Madigan describes it and rightly mentions the problem between
this reality of tanzîl and the challenge of jumlatan wâḥidatan in inzâl. Therefore, contrary
to what Shahrur believes, the object of tanzîl is al-islâm including shari‘ah (including
‘ibâdât or rituals, mu‘âmilât, aḥkâm and ḥudûd or jurisprudence and fiqh), and târikh (the
History). Consequently, the object of inzâl is al-îmân including tawḥîd (pure
monotheism), nubuwwah (the truness of prophecy), and mu‘âd (resurrection). In both
cases, each category has its own subcategories, and some subcategories might overlap
with each other.202
For example, in tanzîl, the category of history includes khalq
(cosmogony and anthropogony), as well as qaṣaṣ al-anbyâ’ (the narratives on other
prophets), and in inzâl, the category of monotheism includes the attributes of God, or the
category of resurrection includes âkhar al-zamân (eschatology), qyâmat (the day of
judgment), janna (heaven), and jaḥîm (hell).
It is not insignificant to mention that these intertwined two parts of the revelation
complete each other and give birth to akhlâq (ethics) as the main objective of their
existence. Thus, while inzâl offers the conceptual sources of ethics, tanzîl reveals
concrete instances and examples for those ethical concepts. This means that contrary to
what Christman says, the content (coming from inzâl) is permanent and the form (coming
from tanzîl) is temporary.
The Qur’ân uses the verb nazala (under one of the two forms of inzâl or tanzîl)
with twenty-five different objects. Here is a list of them: 1) mâ’ (water from the sky),203
2) al-ghayth (rain),204
3) qur’ân,205
4) al-furqân,206
5) kitâb,207
6) dhikr (remembrance),208
201 Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image, 8.
202
For example, while talking about the day of judgment in 5:116, the Qur’ân narrates future
conversations between God and Jesus with references to historical facts that belong to the subcategory of
târîkh.
203
i.e. 8:11.
204
i.e. 31:34.
205
As object of nazala, the term qur’ân has been used in the Qur’ân in both definite (i.e. 3:3) and
indefinite (i.e. 17:106) forms.
206
As object of nazala, the term al-furqân always appears in its definite form (i.e. 25:1).
207
As object of nazala, the term kitâb has been used in the Qur’ân in both definite (i.e. 16:89) and
indefinite (i.e. 39:23) forms.
208
As object of nazala, the term dhikr appears in the Qur’ân in both definite (16:44) and indefinite (i.e.
65:10) forms.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
172
7) al-tawrât (Torah),209
8) al-injîl (Gospel), 9) malak (angel),210
10) âyât (signs, proofs or
verses),211
11) sûratan (a chapter),212
12) al-ḥikmah (wisdom),213
13) amanatan (a
security),214
14) al-sakinah (calm or certitude),215
15) junûdan (an army [from God]),216
16) min rizqin (from subsistance),217
17) min al-an‘âm thamâniya (of cattle eight
kinds),218
18) khayr (blessing),219
19) rijzan min al-samâ’ (a humiliation from the sky),220
20) al-bayyinât wa al-hudâ (the proofs and the guidance),221
21) nûr (light),222
22) libâsâ
(a cloth),223
23) al-manna wa al-salwâ (manna and salwa),224
24) al-ḥadîd (the iron),225
and 25) amrullâh (Allâh’s order).226
Also, in many cases the object of the verb is a
pronoun that refers to one of the above-mentioned twenty-five terms.227
Meanwhile, all
six terms possibly referring to the result of the revelation including al-qur’ân, al-furqân,
al-kitâb, al-dhikr, âyah (or âyât), and sûrah (or suwar) appear in the Qur’ân as objects of
both inzâl and tanzîl.228
Thus, as opposed to Shahrur’s oversimplified categorization of
Qur’ânic terms and expressions leading to hasty innovative definitions for terms such as
umm al-kitâb, al-qur’ân, al-kitâb, and al-furqân, a glance at the frequent Qur’ânic usages
of these terms under both verbs related to inzâl and tanzîl, plus their numerous
209 i.e. 3:93.
210
As object of nazala, the term malak appears in the Qur’ân in both singular (6:8) and plural (i.e. 16:2)
forms.
211
i.e. 57:9.
212
i.e. 24:1.
213
i.e. 4:113.
214
i.e. 3:154.
215
As object of nazala, this term apperas in two forms: al-sakina (the calm, i.e. 48:4), and sakinatihi (His
calm, i.e. 9:26).
216
Ibid.
217
i.e. 10:59.
218
i.e. 39:6
219
i.e. 28:24.
220
i.e. 2:59.
221
i.e. 2:159
222
i.e. 4:174.
223
In 7:26.
224
i.e. 7:160.
225
In 57:25.
226
In 65:5.
227
In those cases, two pronouns have been used: one mâ (what) as in 36:28, and the other hu (it) as in
17:105.
228
Among these terms, by far the two terms al-kitâb and al-qur’ân have been of interest to scholrs in
Qur’ânic Studies. As an example, Madigan’s book, The Qur’ân’s Self-Image is the author’s dedication to
the study of different forms of the term al-kitâb and its probable meanings.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
173
appearances as objects of other verbs, suggest that by mere textual analysis of these
terms, one cannot allocate each of them to one of the two categories of inzâl and tanzîl.229
Instead, the usages of the same terms (especially al-kitâb and al-qur’ân) as products of
both phenomena of inzâl and tanzîl, as noted already by Madigan:
… reflects a belief … in the plurality of the manifestations of the one
kitâb, that is, the successive interventions made by God in history [tanzîl]
in order to guide humanity [inzâl] … The Qur’ân’s very claim to authority
rests on there being a single, univocal, and integral kitâb [containing
concepts revealed through inzâl], manifested in the past and now manifest
once more through the mission of the Prophet [revealed through tanzîl].230
In other words, the Qur’ân is the result of inzâl, and at the same time, it is the result of
tanzîl. This leads to my conclusion that while the emphasis that mufassirûn have put on
asbâb al-nuzûl, reflecting tanzîl of the Qur’ân, and the importance that Western scholars
have given to the historico-critical study of the Qur’ân have both been enormously
helpful for the understanding of the prophetic part of the Qur’ân, they could not do justice
to the exposition and clarification of the Qur’ân’s trans-historical messengeric part.231
In order to distinguish more clearly these two parts of the Qur’ân from each other,
besides the tafâsîr, the researcher’s two main tools are: first, textual analysis with an
emphasis on the content analysis, looking for relationships between possibilities of the
message of the âyah with textual evidences and/or signs of prophecy presented within
instances and/or messengerhood presented through concepts;232
and second, historico-
critical analysis that enables the researcher to find the level of interdependence between
229 Here are some examples of the term al-kitâb as object of verbs other than inzâl or tanzîl: it appears as
the object of ataya (to give as in 4:51), alama (to teach as in 3:164) or talâ (to recite as in 2:113), kataba
(to write as in 2:79) or âmana (to believe in as in 2:85).
230
Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self Image, 177.
231
As Fikret Karcic mentions:
The basic question is: can historical records corroborate the truth of a textual account?
The branch of scholarship which deals with these issues is known as historical criticism.
However, while this is relevant only for the study of factual textual accounts, it is not
relevant for normative and theological/ metaphysical statements …
theological/metaphysical statements are … beyond the scope of human experience and
thus their veracity cannot be corroborated by extra-textual evidence. Their veracity is a
matter of belief.
See Fikret Karcic, “Textual Analysis in Islamic Studies: A Short Historical and Comparative Survey.”
Islamic Studies, vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2006): 191-220 (p. 193).
232
Here, the authorship and the authenticity of the text are out of question.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
174
historical realities as contexts of units of revelation (âyahs) and the message that each
given unit presents.
A par excellence example for the first method is the Qur’ânic usages of yâ ayyuha
al-nabî (being translated “O Prophet”) versus yâ ayyuha al-rasûl (being translated “O
Messenger”). A very explicit textual sign to recognize prophetic âyahs from messengeric
âyahs is if an âyah starts with one of the two expressions of “O Prophet” or “O
Messenger.”233
In fact, while the expression of “O Prophet” is used 13 times in the
Qur’ân, the expression of “O Messenger” appears only twice. This might be an indirect
reference to the proportion of prophetic âyahs vis-à-vis messengeric âyahs in the
Qur’ân.234
While all âyahs starting with one of these two expressions continue with an
imperative verb, those starting with yâ ayyuha al-nabî, on the one hand, order a terrestrial
action such as marrying, divorcing or fighting, and the two âyahs starting with yâ ayyuha
al-rasûl, on the other hand, order him to “make known what has been revealed” to him
from his Lord, and “not let those who vie one with another in the race to disbelief”
sadden him. In a way, as mentioned before, the messengeric âyahs ask the Prophet to
accomplish his mission, and to abandon the result in the hands of God.
For example, the concept of hijâb as understood today to mean a particular
clothing that covers the head of woman in such a way as not to see any hair but leaving
the face visible, is found in only two Qur’ânic âyahs. One can not find any other âyah
directly or indirectly ordering women to wear hijâb.235
Surprizingly one of the two âyahs
start with the expression “O Prophet,” and the other one does not include it. They are as
following:
بيبهن ـو ن من ج ي مين يدنين ونساء ٱلم وبات زوتج أيا ٱلبى ق ل ـو أدنىو ي ين تل ن ل ي أن يعر
233 On several occasions, the Qur’ân directly addresses the Prophet by starting the âyah with “Say [O
Muḥammad].” Classifying these âyahs under one of the two main categories of Messengeric or prophetic
requires help from content analysis and historico-critical approaches. For some examples of these âyahs,
see 109:1; 112:1; 113:1; and 114:1.
234
“O Prophet” appears in 8:64, 65, 70; 9:73; 33:1, 28, 45, 50, 59; 60:12; 65:1; 66:1, 9. “O Messenger”
appears in 5:41, 67.
235
A third âyah that completes the order of hijâb in 24:31 is 24:60 that abrogates the order for women
who have passed their menopause, and are not attractive anymore. It reads:
As for women past child-bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if
they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain
is better for them. Allâh is Hearer, Knower.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
175
ا حيم ا ر فور ان ٱلل و
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the
believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad).
That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allâh
is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (33:59)
رهم ويحفظوا روجهم ـو وا من أبص مين يغض م ىو لهم ق ل أز تل إن ٱلل
ت يغضضن من أب ـو م م رهن ويحفظن روجهن ول يبدين خبير بما يصعون وق ل ـو ص
ها ن زيتهن إل ما ظهر م ىو جيوب مرهن ول يبدين زيتهن إل لبعولتهن وليضربن ب
هن أو ءاباء بعولتهن أو هن أو أباء بعولتهن أو إخوتنهن أو بى إخوتنهن أو أو ءابا أبا
ربة م ير أولى ٱل بعين ـو هن أو ٱلت ـو هن أو ما مكت أيم جال أو بى أخوتتهن أو نسا ن ٱلر
ٱل ٱل ساء ٱلط ف ورت ىو فين من ذين لم يظهروا ول يضربن بأرجهن ليعم ما ي
مون لعكم تفحون زيتهن ا أيه ٱلم جميع وتوبوا إلى ٱلل
Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for
them. Lo! Allah is aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to
lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that
which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to
reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’
fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their
brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male
attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s
nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide
of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that
ye may succeed. (24:30-1)
Despite the unanimous consensus of all mufassirûn on the obligation of wearing hijâb as
ordered in these two âyahs, accepting the subdivision of the Qur’ân into messengeric and
prophetic parts, and doing a carefull content analysis study of these two âyahs can reveal
interesting information about the differences between the instance of hijâb when referring
implicitly to the Prophet’s era, as ordered in the first prophetic âyah, and the concept of
hijâb at all times, as ordered to both men and women in the second messengeric âyah.
Examples for the crucial necessity of a historico-critical study of the Qur’ânic text
aiming to distinguish between its timebound messages from its timeless messages are
numerous. In fact, the consequences of taking âyahs that belong to the timebound
prophetic mission of the Prophet for the timeless messengeric part of his mission can be
deadly. Here is an example:
وله ور م ٱلل مون ما حر ول بٱليوم ٱلخر ول يحر مون بٱلل توا ٱلذين ل ي ـو ۥ ول يديون دين ق
غرون ٱلح ـو ن يد وهم ص ب حتىو يعطوا ٱلجزية ـو من ٱلذين أوتوا ٱلڪت
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
176
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe
not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath
forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until
they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (9:26)
ا تقت ب ريق ب من صياصيهم وقذف ى قوبهم ٱلر ـو ٱلكت ن أه هروهم م ـو ون وأنزل ٱلذين ظ
ر م تطـ وهاوتأا ل رهم وأموتلهم وأر ـو م ودي ا وأورثكم أر
ا ون ريق شىء قدير ىو ڪ ان ٱلل و
And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them
down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye
slew, and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land
and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is
ever Able to do all things. (33:26-7)
These three âyahs are about a historical event in the last years of the Prophet’s life. From
the very beginning of the establishment of the Prophet’s governance in Yathrib, the
Prophet proposed a pact called al-half al-madîna or sahîfat at-madîna (the pact of
Medina) according to which different tribes of Yathrib (now called Medina) and its
surroundings were allied under the concept of one umma. The pact was initialy proposed
to put an end to the historical conflicts between the two main tribes of Yathrib, the Aws
and the Khazrajs, but later, the Jewish community inhabiting the region joined the pact
and became allied with Muslims. According to this pact, security was everyone’s right;
non-Muslim members of the pact had equal political and cultural rights as Muslims;
everybody could enjoy the freedom of religion and rituals; and, in case of a war, non-
Muslims had to share the costs of war with Muslims, and by doing so, they were not
obliged to take part in the battle. Also non-Muslim members had to promise not to betray
Muslims by coniving with their ennemies. The three main non-Muslim group members of
this pact were three Jewish tribes. The largest was the tribe of Banû-Qurayẓa. The two
smaller Jewish tribes were the Banû-Nadhîr and the Banû-Qaynuqâ‘. In 624C.E.236
,
236 Ziauddin Ahmad writes:
This suggestion seems to be irrelevant in view of the spirit of subsequent events of Jewish
conspiracies against the Prophet provide us with ample proof that the Jews were never
reconciled to the new polity and were never faithful to the terms of the Charter; they
opposed the Prophet to tooth and nail, sometimes openly and sometimes by embraching
Islam hypocritically, and in collusion with the enemies. It is, then, actually the treachery
of the Jews, not the strength of Islam, that deprived them of the rights and privileges
accorded to them under the Charter and ultimately they were exiled from Medina.
See Ziauddin Ahmad, “The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam.” Islamic Studies, vol. 14, No. 4 (Winter 1975):
293-305 (p. 295).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
177
without going into the historical details, the Banû-Qaynuqâ‘ tribe was exiled
fromYathrib/Medina. In 627C.E., after the Banû-Nadhîr had joined force with the
Quraysh tribe from Mecca against the Muslims in Yathrib/Medina, thereby breaking their
initial commitment to the pact of Medina, the Banû-Qurayẓa remained in a difficult
position. There are conflicting reports as to their role during the Battle of the Trenches
during which the Quraysh had besieged Medina, with the help of the Banû-Nadhîr.
Again, without going into historical details, after the victory of Muslims against the
Meccans at that battle, the Muslim army turned around and attacked the Banû-Qurayẓa.
After a siege of their neighborhood that, according to Ibn Isḥâq (85-151H),237
lasted 25
days,238
they surrendered and an agreement to choose an arbitrator was reached. Jews
selected Sa‘d b. Mu‘âdh (d. 5H), a chief of the Aws tribe and a former ally of the Banû-
Qurayẓa, who judged that, as described by the Torah’s law, the betrayers’ properties must
be taken over by Muslims, their women and children must be enslaved, and all their adult
males must be executed. This harsh decision was, at least according to many Muslim
historians, to avoid any further treason.239
These events are much more complex and the historical reconstruction of the
reasons behind them even more so. What is useful for our argument here is that the order
to attack Banû-Qurayẓa was revealed in 9:26, and Muslims’ victory over the planners of
the Battle of al-Aḥzâb (Banû-Nadhîr) has been announced in 33:26-7. This battle and its
following events are mainly reported in sûrahs 9 and 33 of the Qur’ân. In fact, sûrah 33
is named after that battle: al-Aḥzâb (the confederates).
Without entering the numerous tafâsîr on these various Qur’ânic passages, the
important question to raise for the present argument about the double messages of the
Qur’ân is if we must consider 9:26 and the divine order of fighting against Banû-Qurayẓa
237 He is Muḥammad b. Isḥâq b. Yasâr (85-151H), the author of Sîra Rasûl-Allâh.
238
Al-Wâqidî (130-206 or 207H) (not to be confused with Muḥammad b. Sa‘d Kâtib al-Wâqidî) reports it
as 15 days. See Abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad b. ‘Umar al-Wâqidî, Kitâb al-Maghâzî li al-Wâqidî. 3rd
ed. 3
vols. Edited by M. Jones. No place of publication: ‘Âlam al-Kutub, 1984 (vol 2, p. 440), available online at
http://archive.org/details/magwaq (consulted on Dec. 9th
2012).
239
For a scholarly study of this battle, see W. N. Arafat, “New Light on the Story of Banû Qurayẓa and
the Jews of Medina.” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1976):
100-7. To understand better the differences between two main Muslim sources of information on this battle,
see Rizwi S. Faiser, “Muhammad and the Medinan Jews: A Comparison of the Texts of Ibn Ishaq’s Kitâb
Sîrat Rasûl Allâh with al-Waqidi’s Kitâb al-Maghâzi.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol.
28, No. 4 (Nov. 1996): 463-489.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
178
as part of the Prophet Muḥammad’s timebound prophetic revelation/message or not? The
answer to this question will put us infront of two opposite worlviews. If the answer is
“yes,” then the âyah must exclusively be understood and interpreted in its historical
context. But if the answer, as the majority of Muslims believe, is “no,” then the âyah
holds a timeless order for the followers of the Prophet, and tafsîr has the responsibility of
clarifying its application(s) throughout times and in all situations. Islamic history has
witnessed numerous cases of conflict and war, at first legitimized by divine orders in
Qur’ânic âyahs during the life of the Prophet Muḥammad, and later on justified by taking
some of these âyahs out of their historico-socio-political contexts, on the basis that they
are timesless orders applicable to “similar” situations.
To give one contemporary vivid example, this decontextualization of the battle of
the Trench and the besieging of Banû-Qurayẓa has contributed enormously to the
contemporary logic used to justify the massacres surrounding the event of September
11th
, 2001 in the United States. Muhammad Atta, the main organiser of the suicide
terrorist attacks left behind a four page document entitled The Last Night. This document
seems to be a sort of manual for the spiritual preparation of the “jihâdi warriors.” The
recitation of some specific Qur’ânic âyahs and prayers are among the suggested spiritual
self-preparation techniques.240
The author puts an emphasis on the recitation of sûrah 33
and the âyahs related to the story of Banû-Qurayẓa. This means that Muhammad Atta
strongly believed that these âyahs held a timeless divine order for all Muslims at all time
and for all circumstances.241
David Cook writes:
The document left behind by the suicide attackers of 11 September 2001
entitled “The Last Night” is an interesting and important window into the
240 For a recent scholarly work on dhabiha (sacrificed), another important Qur’ânic term used in this
document, see Yvonne Sherwood, “Binding-Unbinding: Divided Responses of Judaism, Christianty, and
Islam to the “Sacrifice” of Abraham’s Beloved Son.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol.
72, No. 4 (2004): 821-861.
241
The emergence of the concept of jizya (a poll tax imposed to non-Muslims living under Islamic
governance) has been another consequence of the decontextualization of this âyah. Knowing that this is the
only Qur’ânic âyah where the term/concept of jizya appears, one can see the crucial role of the
decontextualization of its message for the establishment of what later became an important aspect of
Muslims’ perception of otherness and their interactions with non-Muslims. To read more details about it,
see Ziauddin Ahmad, “The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam.” Islamic Studies, vol. 14, No. 4 (Winter 1975):
293-305.
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
179
mind of a person preparing attacks of this type … [in the document]
individual sûras are mentioned for preferred reading material and verses
are cited to elucidate specific points—as well as prayers and devotions. ...
One of the most interesting prayers cited is the ritual prayer against the
ahzab, the Confederates (from page 3) … It is clear that the writer of “The
Last Night”—following Faraj, Usama b. Ladin and many other previous
leaders of radical Islam—choses to refer to the enemy as al-ahzab, the
Confederates. … The authors of “The Last Night” apparently went to great
lengths to recreate the situation of the original ahzab, who gathered
together to fight the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims in 626 during
the Battle of the Khandaq. These Confederates included … both enemies
from without … and within (the Jewish tribes of Banu Nadir and Banu
Qurayza …). ... Contemporary radical Muslims note that there is an
alliance between what they refer to as “Muslim” rulers … and the non-
Muslim West, similar to the situation during the time of the earliest
Muslims. The Prophet … cursed these ahzab using the prayer cited in
“The Last Night,” and a number of the Qur’ânic verses cited in the
document were revealed at this time. This strategy shows that the place of
the true Muslims will be on the front lines fighting the ahzab; only traitors
and apostates will remain behind. After the ahzab retreated (their supplies
were exhausted), the Prophet Muhammad proceeded to deal with the
Jewish tribes and the Muslim hypocrites, exiling some and executing
others. Clearly this is part of the overall strategy of this manner of waging
jihad: to fight the unbelievers and to use the war process as a time during
which true Muslims will be separated from false Muslim.242
As a final word, it is important to mention that while presenting the theory of double
messages of the Qur’ân, I strongly believe that the Qur’anic text cannot be divided into
prophetic and messengeric parts as a black and white dichotomy. The overlaps between
these two subdivisions are frequent, and it takes years of study, analysis, and debate to
distinguish them from each other. In some cases an âyah might include aspects of both
kinds, and the question is if this distinction must be expanded to units smaller than single
âyahs or not. Also, there are verses that are fully messengeric and fully prophetic,
sending simultaneously two parallel messages one for the original audience of the
Qur’anic text, and the other for later audiences. My theory is a first step in opening up a
new way of interpreting the Qur’an. The road is slippery and long, and an efficient use of
this hermeneutical tool requires collaborations of many scholars who, by their
constructive criticism and their further use of the tool, will hopefully perfect it. My thesis
242 David Cook, “Suicide Attacks or ‘Martyrdom Operations’ in Contemporary Jihad Literature.” Nova
Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, vol. 6, No. 1 (Oct. 2002): 7-44 (pp. 21-3).
CHAPTER 2. ON THEMES, TOPICS AND DIVISIONS IN THE QUR’ÂN
180
develops and uses this theory to examine one single âyah on the question of crucifixion
of Jesus. It aims to reveal to which category, prophetic or messengeric, belongs this âyah.
It also tries to explain the potential implications of this dual categorization for the
interpretation of this particular yet very important âyah, especially for Muslim-Christian
relations.
Chapter 3
On nafs, rûḥ, and the Question of tawaffâ and mawt in
the Qur’ân
3.1 Introduction
This chapter is a hermeneutical essay on the two Qur’ânic concepts of al-nafs (translated
as self, soul, nature, life, mind, etc.) and al-rûḥ (sometime translated as spirit and
sometime translated as soul), and their relationship with the two concepts of al-mawt
(death) and al-tawaffâ (also translated as death). These two pairs of concepts are directly
connected with the Qur’ânic narrative about the last day of Jesus on earth and his true or
false crucifixion. At the end of this chapter, I will present my theory of humans’ tripartite
nature as an ontological tool for the understanding of human’s nature, with important
hermeneutical consequences that might shed new light on the Qur’ânic image of human
beings, thereby helping us to rethink the question of human’s rights and limits in the
Qur’ân.
To study the above-mentioned concepts, I make a selection of tafâsîr based on
principles that warranty a reliable coverage of fourteen centuries of Muslim exegetical
effort that has generated a vast literature. A secondary goal of this chapter is to select and
introduce those selected works through a brief history of their authors. This same
selection will also be used in the same order when it will come to study the Crucifixion of
Jesus in the next chapter.
3.2 The Self
The concept of self has been the subject of many academic works and intellectual
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
182
discussions in philosophies and theologies of probably all religions and cultures.1 Since
the emergence of Greek philosophy, this concept has always been in the centre of
philosophers’ attention as a criterion for understanding the universe. It is also essential to
human’s understanding of history. As Isaac Miller mentions, “Philosophers interested in
the status of narrative [history] more frequently begin with the intimate domain of the
self, and from there work out to the world.”2
Over centuries, the knowledge of the self or self-knowledge has been considered
by thinkers as an inevitable factor for human’s wellbeing. In his “Description of Greece,”
Pausanias, the ancient Greek travelogue, reports that the aphorism of “know thyself” was
inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.3 Plato clarifies that “know
thyself” is “a piece of advice, and not the god’s salutation of those who were entering;
and so, in order that their dedications too might equally give pieces of useful advice, they
wrote these words and dedicated them.”4 The character of Socrates in Plato’s works
frequently refers to this maxim and builds his worldview around it. In Gorgias, Plato
narrates a discussion between the character of Socrates and Callicles. There, arguments
given by Socrates against Callicles clearly reveal the vast philosophical implications of
this self-knowledge in Plato’s thought. As Avnon explains:
Socrates explicitly states that self-knowledge is the primary goal of the
1 While theologians of some religions such as Abrahamic traditions have tried to understand the self, its
nature, and its functions, the “theologians” of some other religions such as Buddhism have tried to prove
the illusory nature of the self, and the misconducts founded on this particular form of human illusion.
2 Isaac Miller, “St. Augustine, the Narrative Self, and the Invention of Fiction.” Qui Parle, vol. 8, No. 2
(Spring/Summer 1995): 54-82, (p. 54).
3 Pausanias 10,24 reads:
Such was the course of the war. In the fore-temple at Delphi are written maxims useful
for the life of men, inscribed by those whom the Greeks say were sages. These were: from
Ionia, Thales of Miletus and Bias of Priene; of the Aeolians in Lesbos, Pittacus of
Mitylene; of the Dorians in Asia, Cleobulus of Lindus; Solon of Athens and Chilon of
Sparta; the seventh sage, according to the list of Plato, the son of Ariston, is not
Periander, the son of Cypselus, but Myson of Chenae, a village on Mount Oeta. These
sages, then, came to Delphi and dedicated to Apollo the celebrated maxims, “Know
thyself,” and “Nothing in excess.”
For more details, see W.H.S. Jones and H.A. Ormerod, Trans., Pausanias Description of Greece. 4 vols.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1918. E-published by Tufts
University in Perseus Digital Library Collection, pausanias 10,24, available online at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ (consulted on May 31st 2012).
4 W.R.M. Lamb, Trans., Plato in Twelve Volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London:
William Heinemann Ltd. 1955. Charmides, 165a, e-published in Perseus Digital Library Collection by
Tufts University, available online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ (consulted on May 31st 2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
183
conversation with Callicles. When Callicles is drawn to contradict himself
on the question of the relation between the pleasant and the good, Socrates
asserts that “when he comes to know himself”…, he will not agree with
this… when Callicles summarizes his argument about the nature of the
powerful, Socrates leads the refutation of his reasoning to the point where
he asks, “Tell me, my friend, what is their relation to themselves?” to
which Callicles responds, “What do you mean?”…. Socrates presses home
his attempt to stop Callicles’ inner momentum: “[Is everyman] his own
master, or is there no need for him to govern himself but only to govern
others?” …. Callicles is again startled: “What do you mean by governing
himself?” …. Callicles is truly perplexed. With this indirect level of
communication in mind, we see that when referring to the danger of
pandering to the “mob of spectators”…, Socrates also has in mind
Callicles’ disordered soul, most apparent in his tendency to pander to the
Athenian deme, presented at the very beginning of the conversation ... as
the most obvious indication of the disordered state of his soul.5
Centuries later, based on a Neoplatonic worldview emphasizing the soul over the body,
Augustine of Hippo (354-430C.E.) founded a “theology of the self” in which the self was
defined in relation to God. The last books of his major work Confessions (books XI to
XIII) are filled with the concept of the self and its crucial role in the spiritual path. As the
publisher of Confessions mentions:
[By re-examining the Neoplatonist concept of the soul, and exploring its
functions,] as he constructs a view of God that would come to dominate
Western thinking, he also creates a new concept of individual identity: the
idea of the self. This identity is achieved through a twofold process: self-
presentation, which leads to self-realization. Augustine creates a literary
character out of the self and places it in a narrative text so that it becomes
part of the grand allegory of redemption ... Augustine says he was flooded
with peace and a great calm. He had finally learned to make his own life
an allegory, where the lessons taught by the Neoplatonists, of emphasizing
the soul over the body, became an actual reality. 6
Since the time of Augustine up to the end of the 19th
century, while some philosophers
such as Nietzsche and Descartes pay special attention to the Neoplatonic Augustinian
concept of the self, trying to use it as a cornerstone for the building of their respective
5 Dan Avnon, “‘Know Thyself’: Socratic Companionship and Platonic Community.” Political Theory,
vol. 3, No. 2 (May 1995): 304-329 (p. 316).
6 Augustine of Hippo, Confessions. E-book in the series of Spark Notes Philosophy Guide. The summary
e-published by Barnes and Noble. NewYork: Spark Publishing, 2005, available online at
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/augustine/section1.rhtml (consulted on May 31st 2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
184
worldviews, almost every Western philosopher writes at least a few sentences on the
question of the self and its definition. In their efforts to achieve a reliable definition for
the self, and a solid understanding of its nature and functions, many use Augustine’s
metaphysical approach.7 However, by the turn of the twentieth century, the quick
modernization and materialization of human conditions in the West lead to calls for a
more ‘realistic’ definition of the self. In his article on this subject, Norris Clarke sums up
those challenges and criticizes metaphysicians for their “isolated Cartesian [idea of the]
self, locked in the self-contemplation of pure thought.”8 Instead, Clarke is more interested
in discovering the “human self as it actually exists in the concrete, in constant
intersubjective openness to other selves in the human community.”9 To Clarke, this self
not only is the source of meanings, but also is the source of intentions and actions. He
believes that the self is the active source for three categories of human activities: 1)
interaction with the world including other selves; 2) interaction with its own self by
reflection, reasoning, etc.; and 3) interaction with “the higher self of God.”10
Surprisingly, in his rather colonialist conclusion, Clarke compares the Western
(Christian?) “self-forgetting union of the self with God in the order of knowledge and
love” with the Eastern (Buddhist and Hindu?) “loss of self,” and suggests that this highest
level of the experience of the self through God’s love must be used (by the West or by
everybody?) as a model for the two other categories/levels. So, it is only by putting an
emphasis on this third level that the West and the East will be able to come closer to each
other, and reconcile their differences.11
He writes:
Perhaps it is only along these lines, by further exploration of and reflection
on these new models of the experience of the self in depth, that we can
infuse new blood into our at present somewhat stagnant Western
metaphysical thought and break through some of the impasses of our
7 It is not insignificant to mention that for metaphysicians, the self is the vessel of meanings. In other
words, meanings dwell in the self.
8 Norris Clarke, “Self as Source of Meaning in Metaphysics.” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 21, No. 4
(June 1968): 597-614 (p. 599).
9 Ibid.
10
To explain the three categories of the self’s interactions, Clarke uses the term “dialogue.” I believe that
“interaction” is a better choice in the sense that unlike dialogue, it does not put an emphasis on the verbal
nature of the action. See ibid., 612.
11
Ibid., 613.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
185
traditional conceptual oppositions of one and many, self and other,
transcendence and immanence… One thing, at least, is certain. It is only
along this path of the self, explored and reflected on at all its levels of
experience, that any significant bridge can be built between Eastern and
Western thought. And surely how we meet this urgent challenge and
opportunity will form the content of the next great chapter in the
intellectual and spiritual history of mankind, one that our own
Metaphysical Society of America is now taking the initiative of fostering
by promoting the formation of an International Society of Metaphysics,
including both East and West, at the next International Congress of
Philosophy in Vienna.
While rightly pointing to the necessity of achieving a common/global understanding of
the self, and the crucial role that this understanding can play in bridging the so-called
‘East’ and ‘West,’ Clarke’s solution is reminiscent of a return to some Christian
theological traditional values that, at least in North America and with indigenous nations
in particular, have been proven not to lead to any brotherhood among different nations.
A few decades later, a much better perspective on the self has been presented by
the contemporary Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor who sheds new light on our
understanding of the problem. In his book entitled Sources of the Self: The Making of the
Modern Identity, Taylor carefully studies the genealogy of the concept of the self,
bringing his readers on a journey from ancient Greek’s views on this concept, to its
modern perceptions. Allen W. Wood, in an excellent summary of Taylor’s masterpiece,
writes:
Taylor understands frameworks themselves as the legacy of a history; his
principal aim is its retrieval, focusing on the modern, post-Cartesian
conception of the human self. Taylor traces its prehistory back to Plato
(chapter 5), where there emerged the notion of human reason as awareness
of a meaningful cosmic order, and to St. Augustine (chapter 6), who gains
access to this order through the self’s “inwardness” in its intimate relation
to God. Descartes (chapter 7) takes the decisively modern turn by
detaching the self from its embodiment, treating “disengaged reason” as
the creator of rational order. This leads in one direction to the “punctual”
self of Locke, the disengaged power to objectify itself and its world
(chapter 9). Like Weber, Heidegger, and the Frankfurt School before him,
Taylor sees the disengaged Cartesian self as leading directly to the
“disenchanted” world of modernity and its corresponding Enlightenment
conception of instrumental reason. Taylor realizes, however, that the
triumph of disengaged reason is only one side of the early history of
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
186
modernity. Taylor also follows other strands, such as Montaigne’s quest to
“decipher” one’s individual self (chapter 10), and internalizing the natural
part of ourselves (chapter 11).12
3.2.1 al-nafs
No one can claim with certainty if there exists a Qur’ânic term that exclusively refers to
the Western concept of the self. However, despite all its ambiguity and complexity, the
term nafs (self, soul, life, mind, etc.) is unanimously considered by both Muslim and non-
Muslim scholars as the closest Qur’ânic concept to the metaphysical notion of the self as
developed in the Western philosophical tradition. The Qur’ânic concept of nafs has been
studied and discussed in detail by many mutakallimûn and mufassirûn. Some modern
scholars of Qur’ânic Studies have also shown interest in defining it and discovering its
characteristics.13
The famous “orientalist” Duncan B. MacDonald (1863-1943C.E.) is
among the first Western scholars to study nafs in Islamic philosophy and its theological
implications. In an article published in 1922, MacDonald focuses on wahm (imagination
or illusion) as one of the main powers of the nafs. At the very beginning of his article, he
translates nafs as “human’s animal psyche,”14
and insists that “the nafs of man, that is his
animal nafs [psyche], is very directly under the influence of sense and wahm and to such
an extent that his nafs often does not distinguish between the wahmiyât [lit. imaginary or
illusory] and the awwaliyât [lit. initial]. So the reason must enter and judge.”15
MacDonald examines the opinions of five great Muslim thinkers on different powers of
the nafs, and concludes that nafs is not only a vessel where imagination, pleasure and
disgust are produced, but also a vessel where perception, rational reflection, and
understanding happen.16
His analysis does not explain how animal psyche can judge itself
by rational reflection to enable human to “distinguish between the wahmiyât and the
12 Allen W. Wood, “Review of Sources of the Self by Charles Taylor.” Philosophical Review, vol. 101,
No. 3 (July 1992): 621-626 (pp. 623-4).
13
All these scholars focus on what already has been written by mufassirûn, mutakallimûn or falâsifa
(philosophers). I could not find any modern scholar and/or hermeneuticists of the Qur’ân who has tried to
study the concept of the self in the Qur’ân regardless of the definitions presented by Muslim erudites
themselves.
14
D. B. Macdonald, “Wahm in Arabic and Its Cognates.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, No. 4 (Oct. 1922): 505-521 (p. 509).
15
Ibid., 510. It is not clear what MacDonald refers to by the transliteration of awwaliyât. He probably has
misread ‘aqliyyah meaning “rational” or “intellectual.”
16
Macdonald’s list includes: Ibn Sinâ, al-Ghazâlî, al-Ghazwînî, al-Ijî, and Ibn Khaldûn.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
187
awwaliyât.” More importantly, a closer examination of his writing reveals that he shifts
between different definitions of nafs. As mentioned before, he first defines nafs as “the
animal psyche of human” (p. 509), but later follows some Muslim thinkers by repeating
that the nafs is composed of nafs ḥaywâniya (animal nafs) and nafs insâniya (human
nafs) (p. 515). He does not bother to clarify the contradiction between his initial
definition of nafs as the human’s animal psyche and this later subdivision that gives some
supra animal powers to nafs.17
A bigger problem is that, while explaining some Sufî
opinions –and he does not mention which school of Sufism– he uses the term rûḥ without
explaining the borders between nafs and rûḥ, nor mentioning where exactly nafs fits into
the picture of human being as a creature composed of al-jasad (the body) and rûḥ. In his
above-mentioned article, MacDonald sometimes translates rûḥ as “spirit” (i.e. on page
519) and sometimes prefers “soul” as its English equivalent (i.e. on page 520).18
Years
later, he is still shifting between various definitions for nafs while translating
philosophical Arabic texts, sometimes using “soul” and sometimes using “spirit.”19
His
ambiguity reflects, among other things, the lack of clarity that has existed also in
Muslims’ diverse definitions of the concept of nafs. A few years before his death,
MacDonald confesses:
The nature of the psyche (nafs) is in dispute. The dominant position [in
Islam] is that it is an accident, existing in one of the atoms of which the
possessor of the psyche is composed. Others hold that the psyche is a body
(jism), compounded of certain fine atoms possessing a distinctive accident
peculiar to them by which they become a psyche, and these atoms are
17 Macdonald explains Ibn Sînâ’s theory according to which the nafs possesses five main powers:
i) the ḥiss mushtarak [common sense]; (ii) the muṣawwira, called also al-khayâl
[picturing power]; (iii) the mutakhayyila or mufakkira [reflection power]; (iv) the
wahmiyya [imaginary power]; (v) the ḥâfiẓa (dhâkira) [memory].
He does not seem to see any contradiction between his definition of the nafs and the fact that this animal
psyche has the power of deep reflection and reasoning.
18
This problem of unreliable translations and shifting between different translations of the same Arabic
term is a common weakness in Macdonald’s work. For example, see his translations of the term nâṭiq.
19
For an example, see Duncan B. MacDonald, “The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzâlî.” Isis,
vol. 25, No. 1 (May 1936): 9-15. On page 12 of this article, MacDonald chooses “soul” as the
definition/translation of nafs, but on page 339 while explaining Ibn Ḥazm’s disproof of material atoms,
MacDonald writes:
[To Ibn Ḥazm,] the psyche [nafs] is a substance (jism) but is different from the humnan
body (jasad); it is an entity and comes out from the body at death (pp. 66, 74). It is the
same as the spirit [rûḥ I suppose].
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
188
mingled with the atoms of the body. Apparently, then, even in this view,
the psyche is a kind of accident. This cannot but remind us of the
hypothesis of William Clifford, the mathematician, and of some other
thorough-going materialists that there is a mind-stuff.20
MacDonald’s conclusion reveals only two of the several possibilities for the definition of
nafs discussed by Muslim thinkers.21
Because of his limited access to the original texts in
Arabic –a limitation that he is well aware of– he does not seem to know about other
possibilities discussed by Muslim scholars. Half a century after him, the British historian
and scholar of Islam Arthur Stanley Tritton (1881-1973C.E.) insists that the problem is
still unsolved. He writes:
Nafs and rûḥ were used loosely to mean almost anything connected with
life, but acquired new meanings as the years went by. Men differed about
the nature and activity of all three constituents of man. ‘Soul’ is almost the
equivalent of nafs in its precise sense though it may be hard at times to
decide if ‘self’ is not more appropriate. It is easier to admit the existence of
soul than to define it for it has neither genus nor proprium; any definition
is imperfect and any description inadequate.22
This citation comes from a brief five pages article entitled Man, nafs, rûḥ, ‘aql in which
Tritton aims to define –or at least show the complexity of finding some adequate
definitions for these four key terms of ‘man,’ ‘nafs,’ ‘rûḥ and ‘‘aql’ (reason or
20 Ibid., 331.
21
For example, MacDonald seems to be totally ignorant about the fact that al-Râzî sees the nafs and the
rûḥ as being together the main source of human’s identity. As a physician, Râzî tries to define and
understand the nafs by studying its worldly implications rather than by pure philosophical thinking. Roger
Arnaldez focuses on this viewpoint of Râzî and writes:
Râzî [conclut] … : ‘Cela étant, nous disons que lorsque l’Instituteur de la langue dit : Je
pose le nom d'Usâma pour exprimer l’essence en elle-même … de chacun des individus
lions en tant que cette essence est une identité, … et cela à la façon d’un nom commun,
on a là un nom propre de genre’ … Sans parler de la valeur magique attribuée à ce nom
dans certaines civilisations, … il est certain qu’il existe dans la pensée humaine une
corrélation étroite entre le nom propre et le principe intérieur caché, esprit ou âme (rûḥ,
nafs), de l’identité personnelle, que ce nom révèle pour le meilleur et pour le pire, en
découvrant a l’ami ou en livrant à l’ennemi le secret unique (sirr) d’une vie.
To present Râzî’s thoughts, Arnaldez translates nafs as l’âme (soul) but does not give any explanation
about his choice of the word. He concludes that to Râzî the nafs, more than anything else, is the “Moi” (I or
me) of everybody that dwells in the “perfect consciousness” of the possessor of the nafs. See Roger
Arnaldez, “Le Moi divin et le Moi humain d’après le commentaire coranique de Faḫr Al-Dîn Al-Râzî.”
Studia Islamica, No. 36 (1972): 71-97 (pp. 75 and 77).
22
Arthur S. Tritton, “Man, Nafs, Rûḥ, ‘Aql.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, vol. 34, No. 3 (1971): 491-495 (p. 491).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
189
intelligence) in Islam. In its encyclopedic tone, the article gives many references to some
classical Muslim thinkers such as Tawḥîdî, Fârâbî, Jawzîyyah, Ghazâlî, Bayḍâwî, Râzî
and Ibn al-Nadîm, but does not offer to its readers anything but a clear picture of the
ontological confusion that any modern scholar of Islam must accept and deal with when
working on the Muslim erudites’ perception of the key Qur’ânic concepts of nafs and
rûḥ.
This ambiguity of the Qur’ânic concept of self is reflected in the translations of
the Qur’ân into other languages. To have an idea about the vast borders of the self in the
Qur’ân, and reveal the severity of the problem, I examine examples of different English
equivalents that Marmaduke Pickthall chooses for nafs in his translation of the Qur’ân.23
To complete my analysis, I select two other popular yet reliable translations of the Qur’ân
and show how their authors often agree neither with Pickthall nor with each other on the
meaning of nafs in the same âyah. None of them is either able to find a precise equivalent
for the term nafs, or capable of retaining their respective choices of English words to
translate all instances of the word nafs in the Qur’ân. The two other translators are Yusuf
Ali24
and Ahmed Ali.25
23 Michael Sells believes that Pickthall belongs to the interpretive tradition of the former Shaykh of al-
Azhar University, Muḥammad Mustafa al-Marâghî (d. 1945C.E.) who was known for his open mindedness
and his liberal choices. He does not mention any source for his conviction. See Michael Sells, “Sound,
Spirit, and Gender in Sûrat Al-Qadr.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 111, No. 2 (April-June
1991): 239-259 (p. 244, f. 15). For a recent and detailed study of Pickthall’ approaches and methodologies,
see Daoud Mohammad Nasimi, A Thematic Comparative Review of Some English Translations of the
Qur’an. Ph.D. Diss. University of Birmingham, 2008.
24
Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872-1953C.E.) was an Indian Muslim and a scholar of Islam who first published
his translation of the Qur’ân into English in 1934. His translation includes an explanatory annotation with
more than 6000 notes. So, in a way, he deserves to be placed somewhere between a translator and an
interpreter of the Qur’ân. His translation of the Qur’ân is among the most well-known and accepted works
of its kind among both ordinary Muslims and academicians. It has been published over 30 times by
different publication houses. The edition used in this thesis is: Abdullâh Yusuf Ali, trans. The Meaning of
the Holy Qur’ân. Seattle: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2010, available online at
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ (consulted on June 4th
2012). In his Ph.D. dissertation, Nasimi
focuses also, among others, on Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’ân. See ibid.
25
Ahmed Ali (1908-1994C.E.) was an Indian poet, novelist and politician whose translation of the Qur’ân
into English was first published by Princeton University Press in 1984. His translation is widely used in
different academic circles and is considered by scholars of Islam as one of the most reliable ones. The
edition used in this thesis is: Orooj Ahmed Ali, trans. Al-Qur’ân: a Contemporary Translation. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993, available online at http://www.deenresearchcenter.com
(consulted on June 4th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
190
The term nafs appears hundreds of time in the Qur’ân in both its singular and
plural forms, with or without different possessive pronouns.26
My selections below of
instances of nafs include Qur’ânic appearances in both singular and plural forms, with
and/or without possessive pronouns.
nafs translated by Pickthall as “human being”
أنه رتءي ىو بى إ ڪتبا تل ا بغير نفس أو ساد ى ٱلرض ڪأنما من أج نفس ۥ من قت
ا ا ومن أحياها ڪأنما أحيا ٱلاس جميع ٱلاس جميع قت
Pickthall’s translation: “For that cause We decreed for the Children of
Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or
corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and
whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all
mankind…” (5:32)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “On that account: We ordained for the Children of
Israel that if anyone slew a person … it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the
whole people…”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “That is why We decreed for the children of
Israel that whosoever kills a human being … it shall be like killing all
humanity; and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race ...”
26 According to Gavin Picken “The term nafs and its derivatives occur in the Qur’ân 398 times.” See
Gavin Picken, “Tazkiyat al-nafs: The Qur’anic Paradigm.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 7, No. 2
(2005): 101-127 (p. 106). Throughout the Qur’ân, the plural form of nafs is always anfus, except in 81:7
and 17:25 where the unusual plural form of nufûs has been used. I checked Ṭabarî, Râzî, Zamakhsharî,
Ṭabâṭabâ’î, and none of them mentions anything about this usage of an unusual plural form of nafs. Even
Suyûṭî who, before anything, is a linguist does not mention anything about this exceptional plural form of
nafs in his work Al-Durr al-Manthûr fi al-Tafsîr al-Ma’thûr. All above-mentioned mufassirûn avoid
repeating nufûs when interpreting the âyah. Those who include the plural form of nafs in their text of tafsîr
on this âyah use the term anfus to refer to nufûs. I also verified five Arab dictionaries: Lisân al-‘Arab,
Maqâyîs al-Lugha, Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha, Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ, and Al-‘Ibâb al-Zâkhir. Ibn Manẓûr (Lisân
al-‘Arab) is the only one who mentions nufûs as a plural form for nafs. He briefly writes: “nafs: … wal-
jam‘u min kulli dhâlik anfus wa nufûs” (… and the plural form for all [what has been said is] anfus and
nufûs).” He does not give more information on the difference(s) between these two plural forms for the
same term. All other authors totally ignore nufûs in their definitions of nafs, and exclusively mention anfus
as its plural form. In his article entitled Translating the Qur’ân, Fazlur Rahman focuses on the translation
of 81:7, and compares a few translations of the term with each other. He does not mention anything about
the shadh (odd) nature of this unusual plural form. See Fazlur Rahman, “Translating the Qur’ân.” Religion
& Literature, vol. 20, No. 1, The Literature of Islam (Spring 1988): 23-30 (pp. 28-9).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
191
In this âyah the term nafs has been repeated three times: twice as an indefinite noun, and
once in the object pronoun of “hâ” (in ahyâhâ or saved it). All three translators ignore the
second appearance of the term (in bi ghayri nafs).27
Surprisingly, when translating the
same Qur’ânic expression repeated word by word in 18:74, all three of them translate this
second nafs. In the case of the first and the third nafs appearing in this âyah, none of the
three translators respects his choice of English equivalent for the first nafs, and translates
the object pronoun of “hâ” referring to the same nafs as “a life.” A bit further in 5:45 all
three of them translate nafs as “life.” Every time nafs is the object of the verb qatala (to
kill) most translators of the Qur’ân unanimously translate it as “life.” This definition of
nafs is studied more in depth on page 13 of this chapter.28
nafs translated by Pickthall as “being”
ن نفس وتحدة م م وهو ٱلذى أنشأ
Pickthall’s translation: “And He it is Who hath produced you from a single
being …” (6:98)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “It is He who hath produced you from a single
person …”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “It is He who produced you from a single cell
…”29
This translated passage provides the best example of how these three translators do not
agree on an English equivalent for nafs.30
Checking other translations of the Qur’ân in
27 Pickthall indirectly mentions it in his choice of word “manslaughter” with an indirect reference to
“man.”
28
For other examples, see their translations of 6:151; 7:189; 17:33; and 25:68.
29
The same sentence has been repeated in 7:189 and 17:33, and all three translators have repeated their
choice of English equivalent for nafs. In his review on Ahmed Ali’s translation of the Qur’ân, Lawrence I.
Conrad writes:
Hence, “nafs means more than one hundred things, including essence, substance, vital
principle, blood etc.”; it therefore has “enough amplitude to include ‘cell’ among its
meanings …,” even though the concept of cell, as he explicitly concedes, was unknown to
ancient etymologists to be identified by them.
See Lawrence I. Conrad, “Review of Al-Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation by Ahmed Ali.” Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, vol. 13, No. 2 (July 2003): 250-253, (p. 252).
30
A very similar expression appears in 39:6, and our three translators are faithful to their choice of words
used here in 6:98.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
192
English reveals to what extent translators are split over the challenge of finding an
equivalent for the term nafs in 6:98: While Arberry, Ahmed Reza Khân, Sarwar, Shakir,
Waḥîd ul-Dîn Khân, Qarîbullâh and Darwîsh all translate it as “soul,”31
Asad translates it
as “living entity,” Daryâbâdî, Hilâlî and Khân translate it as “person,” and Mawdûdî
translates it as “being.”32
The split among French translations of nafs is even deeper.33
One can difficultly
find two well-known translators of the Qur’ân in French who agree on a French
equivalent for the term nafs in 6:98. Jacques Berque and Hamza Boubakeur translate it as
âme (soul),34
Mohammed Chiadmi translates it as souffle vital (breath of life),35
André
Chouraqui translates it as être (being),36
André Du Rayer and Denise Masson translate it
as personne (person),37
Muhammad Hamidullah follows them, adding Adam (Adam) in
parenthesis,38
and to complete this diversity Kasimirski translates it as individu
(individual).39
nafs translated by Pickthall as “self”
تانون أنفسم ن ٱلذين ي دل ـو ا ول تج انا أثيم ان خو ل يحب من إن ٱلل
Pickthall’s translation: “And plead not [O Prophet] on behalf of (people)
who deceive themselves. Lo! Allah loveth not one who is treacherous and
31 Arberry adds the adjective “living” to it.
32
All these translations are available online at http://www.qurandislam.com/coran/trans/ (consulted on
June 8th
2012).
33
I also verified 11 translations of 6:98 in Persian, and to my surprise, 10 out of them were unanimous on
tan (lit. body or person) being the Persian equivalent for nafs in this âyah. It might be worthy of attention
for scholars of comparative Persian literature to research these translations further. They are available
online at http://www.qurandislam.com/coran/trans/ (consulted on June 8th
2012).
34
See Hamza Boubakeur, trans. Le Coran: Traduction nouvelle. 5 vols. Algeria: ENAG, 1989 (vol. 2, p.
63). See Jacques Berque, trans. Le Coran: Essai de traduction. 2 vols. Paris : Albin Michel, 1995 (vol. 1, p.
152).
35
See Mohammed Chiadmi, trans. Le Noble Coran: Nouvelle traduction française du sens de ses versets.
Lyon: Tawhid, 2007 (p. 161).
36
See André Chouraqui, trans. Le Coran, l’appel. Paris: Robert Lafont, 1990.
37
See André Du Rye, trans. Le Coran de Mahomet. Paris: Antoine de Sommaville, 1647. See also Denise
Masson, trans. Le Coran. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1967.
38
See Muhammad Hamidullah, trans. Le Coran. Paris: no publisher, 1963, available online at
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?l=arb&t=frn&nSora=1&nAya=1 (consulted
on June 8th
2012).
39
See Kasimirski, trans. Le Coran. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1970 (p. 125).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
193
sinful.” (4:107)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own
souls: for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and crime.”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “Do not argue for those who harbour deceit in
their hearts, for God does not love the treacherous and the iniquitous.’”
This is an example of when Pickthall is among the minority of translators preferring
“self” as the meaning of nafs in English. There are other instances where most translators
agree on “self” being the translation of nafs, but Pickthall avoids using it.40
However, the
Qur’ânic instances where most translators including Pickthall choose “self” as the best
English equivalent for nafs are rare.41
Finally, and most importantly for this research, one
cannot find a single Qur’ânic appearance of nafs where all translators unanimously
translate it as self.
nafs translated by Pickthall as “soul”
ا قته م ـو إا لقيا ا ٱنطقا حتىو ا نكر قد جئت شيـ ية بغير نفس ل ا ز ت نفس ۥ قال أقت
Pickthall’s translation: “So they twain journeyed on till, when they met a
lad, he slew him. (Moses) said: What! Hast thou slain an innocent soul
who hath slain no man? Verily thou hast done a horrid thing.” (18 :74)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “Then they proceeded: until, when they met a
young man, he slew him. Moses said: ‘Hast thou slain an innocent person
who had slain none? Truly a foul (unheard-of) thing hast thou done!’”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “The two went on till they came to a boy, whom
he killed. Moses exclaimed: "You have killed an innocent soul who had
taken no life. You have done a most abominable thing!’”
“Soul” is probably the most dominant equivalent for nafs chosen by English translators of
the Qur’ân.42
Meanwhile, most of the time as one can see here, when the term nafs
40 For example, in 3:164 most translators have translated rasûlan min anfusihîm as “a Messenger from
among themselves,” but Pickthall translates it “a messenger of their own.”
41
See, for example, 7:172 or 6:54. It is not surprising to know that in most of those rare cases, the âyah
talks about the nafs of God, which for theological reasons is not easily translatable.
42
See, for example, their translations of 3:144, 161, 185; 4:1; 6:70, 164; 10:30, 54, 100, 105; 12:68;
20:15; 21:35, 47; 39:70; 74:38; 79:40.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
194
appears more than once in an âyah, those translators who translate it as “soul,” often
translate the other occurance(s) differently.43
In this âyah, Pickthall translates the first
nafs as “soul,” and the second nafs as “man.” Although Ahmed Ali agrees with Pickthall
on his choice of translation for the first nafs, he does not follow Pickthall in his
translation of the second nafs.
nafs translated by Pickthall as “heart”
فهۦ يحفظونه له ن بين يديه ومن خ م ت ـو ۥ معق ب ل يغي ر ما بقوم حتىو يغي ر ۥ من أمر ٱلل وا ما إن ٱلل
م ا ل مرد له بأنفس وء بقوم ن دونهۦ من وال ۥ وإا أراد ٱلل وما لهم م
Pickthall’s translation: “For him are angels ranged before him and behind
him, who guard him by Allah’s command. Lo! Allah changeth not the
condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts;
and if Allah willeth misfortune for a folk there is none that can repel it, nor
have they a defender beside Him.” (13:11)
Yûuf ‘Ali’s translation: “… Verily never will Allah change the condition
of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls) ...”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “… Verily God does not change the state of a
people till they change themselves …”
Pickthall translates nafs in 13:11 as “heart.” In Pickthall’s translation of the Qur’ân, all
Qur’ânic appearances of the terms qalb and fu’âd have also been translated as “heart.”44
It is not clear if here, Pickthall understands nafs as qalb or fu’âd, or if by choosing
“heart” he tries giving to his readers a sense of “internality” reflected in the Qur’ân’s
emphasis that “any change for a human society must come from within its members.”45
In all three translations, the prefix of mâbi (what exists in or what is in) attached to nafs
has been ignored. A literary translation would be: “until they change what is in their
anfus.”
43 Many times, one of the two nafs is translated as “self.” Sometimes it is the second nafs that is translated
as “self” (i.e. their translations of 12:53 or 16:111), and sometimes it is the first nafs that is translated as
“self” (i.e. their translations of 17:7 or 30:28).
44
For qalb, see, for example, his translations of 2:204, 260, 283; 8:24; 16:106; 28:10; 33:4. For fu’âd, see,
for example, his translations of 11:20; 17:36; 25:32; 28:10; 53:11.
45
The same expression first appears in 8:53. Pickthall and Yusuf Ali’s translation of 13:11 is the
repetition of their translation in 8:53. Ahmed Ali chooses “heart” as the definition of nafs in 8:53, but
changes his choice of word to “self” (in themselves) here in 13:11.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
195
nafs translated by Pickthall as “mind”
هين من دون ٱلل ـو ى إل ذونى وأم ت لاس ٱت عيسى ٱبن مريم ءأنت ق ـو ي قال وإ قال ٱلل
بح ما يكون لى أن أقول ما ليس لى بح ته ـو ت ق مته إن م ۥ ۥ قد تعم ما ى نفسى ول أ
ما ى نفس م ٱلغيو ـو أنت إن
Pickthall’s translation: “And when Allah saith: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary!
Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside
Allah?’ he saith: ‘Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had
no right. If I had ever said it, then Thou wouldst have known it. Thou
knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo!
Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?’” (5:116)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “And behold! Allah will say ‘O Jesus the son of
Mary! Didst thou say unto men … He will say: … Thou knowest what is
in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine…’”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “And when God will ask: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary,
did you say to mankind … (Jesus) will answer: ... You know what is in my
heart though I know not what You have. You alone know the secrets
unknown.’”46
It is important to mention that, while the Qur’ân emphasizes repeatedly the importance of
thinking and reflection (tafakkur),47
reasoning and intellection (ta’aqqul),48
pondering
and wise administration (tadabbur),49
as well as understanding and right comprehension
(tafaqquh),50
all of which reflect a healthy mind, no Qur’ânic term explicitly mentions
what, in English, is referred to as “mind.” Its closest Qur’ânic equivalent is probably qalb
when used as a subject of the verb faqaha (to understand), but in all appearances of this
Qur’ânic combination, Pickthall persists on translating it as heart.51
Instead, on some
occasions, such as here in 5:116, he translates nafs as “mind,” a translation that others do
not necessarily agree with.52
46 For another example, see their translations of 20:67.
47
See, for example, 2;219, 266; 3:191; 6:50; 7:176; 10:24; 13:3; 16:11, 44, 69; 30:8, 21.
48
See, for example, 2:73, 76, 242; 3:65, 118; 6:32, 151; 7:169; 12:2, 109; 21:10, 67; 23:80.
49
See, for example, 4:82; 47:24; 23:68; 38:29.
50
See, for example, 6:65, 98; 7:179; 8:65; 9:81, 87, 122, 127.
51
In a few cases, Yusuf Ali translates qalb as “mind” or “understanding.” See, for example, his translation
of 2:60.
52
For another example, see Pickthall’s translation of 12:18, 83; 33:37.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
196
nafs translated by Pickthall as “kind”
ن ورزقكم م ن أزوتجڪم بين وحفدة لكم م ا وجع ن أنفسكم أزوتج لكم م جع ت وٱلل ـو ٱلطي ب
هم يكفرون مون وبعمت ٱلل ي ط ـو أبٱلب
Pickthall’s translation: “And Allah hath given you wives of your own kind,
and hath given you, from your wives, sons and grandsons, and hath made
provision of good things for you. Is it then in vanity that they believe and
in the grace of Allah that they disbelieve?” (16:72)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “And Allah has made for you mates (and
companions) of your own nature…”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “God has provided mates for you of your own
kind …”
It is not clear here if the meaning is more linked to “own” or if it is in the term that comes
after it. Also, it is not clear how the same “kind” in Pickthall’s translation can generate a
different gender. As a matter of fact, “nafs” is a feminine term in Arabic and while
presenting the concept of matrimony, the Qur’ân respects the gender of the term and uses
the masculine term of zawj (in plural form) to refer to the nafs’ mate.53
nafs translated as “life”
53 This idea has been presented six times in the Qur’ân: three times with zawj in plural form (in 16:72;
30:21; and 42:11), and three times with zawj as a singular noun (in 4:1; 7:189; and 39:6). While the three
repetitions of this statement with zawj in plural form talk about matrimony among humans in general, the
three instances having zawj in singular form are references to the Qur’ânic anthropogenic myth. In 30:21
Pickthall translates the expression as “He created for you helpmeets from yourselves…” Although there,
Pickthall abandons the equivalent of “kind” for self, by his choice of “helpmeet” for the masculine term of
zawj, he still insists that God created “wives” for “men.” In terms of gender, his translation of 42:11 is by
far, his best. It reads: “He hath made for you pairs of yourselves…” When Pickthall translates the Qur’ânic
anthropogenic statement in 4:1; 7:189; and 39:6, he shifts from a more or less neutral translation of 4:1 and
39:6 to a sexist and patriarchal translation of the same statement in 7:189. His translation of 4:1 reads:
O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and
from it created its mate …,” his translation of 39:6 reads: “He created you from one
being, then from that (being) He made its mate ...
Then for an unknown reason, he changes his approach and translates 7:186 as: “He it is Who did create you
from a single soul, and therefrom did make his mate that he might take rest in her…” A more respectful
translation of the genders associated with these terms could be:
He it is Who created you from a single nafs, and therefrom that (nafs) He made her zawj,
that the zawj might take rest in her.” This, of course, needs to be studied more in depth by
feminist scholars of the Qur’ân.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
197
إل بٱلح م ٱلل ها ءاخر ول يقتون ٱلفس ٱلتى حر ـو إل ون مع ٱلل ول يزنون وٱلذين ل يد ومن يفع
ا أثام ي تل
Pickthall’s translation: “And those who cry not unto any other god along
with Allah, nor take the life which Allah hath forbidden save in (course of)
justice, nor commit adultery - and whoso doeth this shall pay the penalty;”
(25:68)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god,
nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred …and any that does this (not
only) meets punishment”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “Who do not invoke any god apart from God,
who do not take a life which God has forbidden … and any one who does
so will be punished for the crime,”54
Here the confusion is between nafs and the Qur’ânic term ḥayât (life). ḥayât appears
numerous times in the Qur’ân in its different verbal and non-verbal forms. In fact, one of
Allâh’s attributes presented in the Qur’ân is al-ḥayy from the same roots as ḥayât,
meaning “alive.”55
In all appearances of ḥayât, all translators of the Qur’ân into English
are unanimous on translating it as “life.” The Qur’ân consistently and exclusively uses
the common and concrete noun of nafs as a reference to human being when the âyah is
about murdering a human. Translators reflect this exclusive usage in their translations by
not changing their choice of the equivalent word for nafs in all instances of this specific
case.56
nafs being ignored in the translation57
ن نفسهۦوقال نسو ها و ٱلعزيز ترتود ت ى ٱلمدية ٱمرأها ى قد شغفها حب ا ة و إنا لر
ا وءاتت لهن متكـ تد ن وأ ت إلي معت بمكرهن أر ا بين م م ـو ا وتح ي ك ن دة م
ن ي ا رأيه وقالت ٱخر برنه م ۥ أ ذا إل م ـو ا إن ه ذا بشر ـو ما ه ش لل ـو ن ح ۥ وقطعن أيدين وق
54 For another example, see their translations of 9:120.
55
The definite article of al gives the term an indirect sense of being “the only alive,” or “the unique source
of life.”
56
See, for example, 6:151; 17:33; 25:68.
57
In his article entitled Tazkiyat al-nafs: The Qur’anic Paradigm, Gavin Picken classifies the Qur’ânic
appearances of nafs into five categories/senses: 1) the soul; 2) the human being; 3) human’s “power of
understanding;” 4) the heart; and 5) “an inclination to Good and Evil.” I believe that his 3rd
and 5th
categories are faculties of nafs rather than its definition. See Gavin Picken, “Tazkiyat al-nafs: The Qur’anic
Paradigm.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 7, No. 2 (2005): 101-127 (pp. 106-7).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
198
ى يه ريم قالت ذتلكن ٱلذى لمت تعصم ولقد رتودته ن نفسهۦ ٱ ما ءامره ۥ ن لم يفع ۥ ليسجن ول
غرين ـو ن ٱلص ا م وليكون
Pickthall’s translation: “And women in the city said: ‘The ruler’s wife is
asking of her slave-boy an ill-deed. Indeed he has smitten her to the heart
with love. We behold her in plain aberration.’ And when she heard of their
sly talk, she sent to them and prepared for them a cushioned couch (to lie
on at the feast) and gave to every one of them a knife and said (to Joseph):
‘Come out unto them!’ And when they saw him they exalted him and cut
their hands, exclaiming: ‘Allah Blameless! This is no a human being. This
is not other than some gracious angel.’ She said: ‘This is he on whose
account ye blamed me. I asked of him an evil act, but he proved continent,
but if he do not my behest he verily shall be imprisoned, and verily shall
be of those brought low.’” (12:30-32)
Yusuf Ali’s translation: “Ladies said in the City: ‘The wife of the (great)
Aziz is seeking to seduce her slave from his (true) self’ … She said: ‘There
before you is the man about whom ye did blame me! I did seek to seduce
him from his (true) self but he did firmly save himself guiltless!...’”
Ahmed Ali’s translation: “In the city the women gossiped: ‘The minister’s
wife longs after her page. He has captured her heart’ … She said: ‘This is
the one you blamed me for. I did desire his person, but he preserved
himself from sin…’”
Here the term nafs has been repeated twice, and in both cases it is in the expression of
murâwîda ‘an nafsihî (lit. to seduce of/from his nafs) referring to the nafs of Yûsuf
(Prophet Joseph). Pickthall decides to totally ignore both appearances of nafs in the
âyah;58
Yusuf Ali translates both of them; and Ahmed Ali ignores the first one and
translates the second one. What makes this case interesting is that Yusuf Ali’s decision to
keep the equivalent of nafs (the two “selfs” in his text) turns his translation into a
nonsense statement. Indeed, “to seduce someone from his true self” is a word by word
translation of an expression which is ambiguous even in its original language. Same
problem occurs when Ahmed Ali decides to keep the second nafs in his translation. In
order to keep it, he seems to be obliged to change his acceptable first translation of the
same expression (to long after somebody), and turn it into an unclear sentence (to desire
somebody’s person). Further, the same expression appears twice in the 51st âyah. This
time, Ahmed Ali joins Pickthall in ignoring both appearances of the term, and Yusuf Ali
58 In this âyah “of her slave-boy” appears separately and independently before “of his nafs.” A word by
word translation would be: “The wife of ‘Azîz is asking of her slave-boy from his nafs.”
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
199
keeps presenting his word by word unclear translation.59
3.2.2 nafs versus rûḥ
Although from the very beginning of Islamic Philosophy, the Qur’ânic concept of nafs
was at the centre of attention of many Muslim thinkers, one cannot deny the fact that this
attention was in part due to their acquaintance with the concept of the self in Greek
philosophy. On the one hand, once Muslim philosophers learned about these Greek
discussions, they became interested in making links between Greek wisdom and their
sacred text, the Holy Qur’ân. On the other hand, not only early philosophical and
theological Muslim works followed Greek models, but Greek knowledge also contributed
greatly in the advancement of other fields of Islamic Sciences such as medicine and
astronomy.60
Consequently, the question of the self was not exclusively a concern for
Muslim falâsifa (philosophers) and/or mutikallimûn (theologians); it was also of serious
interest to early Muslim medical doctors61
and –to a lesser extent– to early Muslim
59 In 12:77, again there is a reference to Joseph’s nafs. This time, Pickthall translates it as “his soul”
(Joseph’s soul), Yusuf Ali translates it as “his heart,” and Ahmed Ali ignores it.
60
There is no need to mention that many of these “scientists” were working simultaneously in different
scientific fields. Some such as Ibn Sinâ, al-Khârazmî, and Khâjah Naṣîr al-Ṭûsî were known as medical
doctors, philosophers, mathematicians, theologians, etc.
61
In most major early Islamic medical works, one can find an independent chapter on nafs, and very
often, that chapter includes references to Greek philosophical discussions on the self. For example, in an
old but still useful-to-read article, Max Meyerhof translates the beginning of the chapter on nafs in the work
of ‘Ubaydullâh b. Jibrâ’îl b. Bakhtîshû (d. 1058H), who served some Abbasid caliphs as a physician. This
short translation reveals to what extent the young Islamic scientific medical tradition was building its
foundations on its knowledge of inherited Greek schools of thought. Meyerhof cites Ibn Bakhtîshû who
writes:
The soul is according to the school of ARISTOTLE the production (namd) of a natural
body endowed with vital energy (19) [parentheses and numbers are from the original
text]. This is the definition in the didactic sense; its definition in the physical sense is that
it is the origin of all sensation and motion. According to PLATO’S school the soul is a
simple intellectual substance which possesses its own motion following a harmonious
numeric proportion (20). According to the school of PYTHAGORAS it is a luminous
substance (21). According to the school of THALES it is a physical substance in
perpetual motion (22). According to the school of DICEARCHUS it originated from the
four elements (23). Very many of the Ancients follow this school, as GALEN points out
in his book ‘That the Soul follows the Complexion of the Body’. According to the school
of ANAXAGORAS the soul is a hot spirit (rûḥ ḥârra). (24). The school of
HERACLITUS, prominent in the medical profession, is of the opinion that it springs from
the vapours of the humours’”. Meyerhof briefly mentions: “’UBAID-ALLAH concludes
that the soul is a substance, since it is the bearer of qualities and accidentia and is self-
sustaining.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
200
astrologists.62
The common point among early Muslim philosophers, mutikallimûn, and
medical doctors was that they unanimously believed that a human being is composed of
jasad and nafs.63
While they all accepted the existence of rûḥ as another element of this
composition, there was no consensus among them on the relationship between nafs and
rûḥ. In this regard, Muslim thinkers were, and still are, divided into three streams of
thought.
The first group, such as Râzî, considers nafs to be a third element in the creation
of human beings.64
In his book ‘Ilm al-Akhlâq, Râzî includes an independent risâlah
Max Meyerhof, “An Arabic Compendium of Medico-Philosophical Definitions.” Isis, vol. 10, No. 2 (June
1928): 340-349 (pp. 344-5). Also, to read a scientific analysis on how the Greek knowledge helped
Muslims to develop their own “hellenized theories” including some Islamic medical theories see Marcia K.
Hermansen, “Shâh Walî Allâh’s Theory of the Subtle Spiritual Centers (Laṭâ’if): A Sufî Model of
Personhood and Self-Transformation.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan. 1988): 1-25.
62
The relationship between nafs and the universe has been discussed by Muslim astrologists from the very
beginning of the emergence of Islamic astrology. Inherited from some streams of early Sufism, many
Muslim astrologists believed that the universe functions according to the human being’s model of creation.
For example, according to Bernd Radtke, al-Tirmidhî believed:
[The] Knowledge of the external (‘ilm al-ẓâhir), the objects of which are the external
world and its rules … is extended to embrace knowledge of the inner cosmos and its laws
which does not replace but includes external knowledge. The objects of inner knowledge
are the world of the soul, then the inner cosmic world that reveals itself in the soul and in
the external world, and finally God Himself.
Radtke also mentions:
… in the teachings of Ismâ‘îl al-Walî we find that man is an image of the cosmos. He is a
part of the earthly world through his body which enters into contact with the earth with its
seven limbs or organs, i.e. the eye, ear, tongue, hand, belly, genitals and the foot. The nafs
also belongs to the world of the earth.
See Bernd Radtke, “Sufism in the 18th
Century: An Attempt at a Provisional Appraisal.” Die Welt des
Islams, New Series, vol. 36, Issue 3, Islamic Enlightenment in the 18th
Century? (Nov. 1996): 326-364 (pp.
339, 349).
63
Fazlur Rahman writes:
It should be kept in mind, however, that the Qur’an hardly ever conceives of a human
being as being composed of two different and separate - let alone disparate - elements: a
soul and a body. In fact, in agreement with the Old Testament, the Qur’an regards a
human being as a unitary organism, one with both physical functions and inner, mental
functions which the Qur’an sometimes calls “the inner personality (6:93).
To support his argument, he gives the example of the âyah 6:93. A glance at nafs used in 6:93 reveals that
it is not different in any sense of the term form its similar usages in other âyahs. I could not find any tafsîr
on 6:93 explaining this “inner personality” Mentioned by Rahman. He himself does not give more
information about his conviction. See Fazlur Rahman, “Translating the Qur’ân.” Religion & Literature, vol.
20, No. 1, The Literature of Islam (Spring 1988): 23-30 (p. 29).
64
In fact Râzî believes in three “levels” of the nafs. In his article entitled Notes on the ‘Spiritual Physic’ of
Al-Râzî Mehdi Mohaghegh focuses on Râzî’s famous book, Al-Ṭibb al-Rûḥânî (Spiritual Physic), and
writes:
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
201
(long article) entitled Kitâb al-Nafs wa al- Rûḥ wa Sharḥ Quwâhumâ (The Book of nafs
and rûḥ and explanations about their powers) where he explains nafs and rûḥ as two
intertwined yet independently existent components of human being.65
The second group is composed of those, such as Imâm abu Ḥâmid al-Ghazâlî
(450-505H), who consider rûḥ as a subcategory of nafs. Ghazâlî calls rûḥ as al-nafs al-
muṭma’innah or “the serene soul,” and clarifies that rûḥ is a “state” of nafs that every
human being is born naturally gifted with.66
An interesting classification of rûḥ under
nafs can be read in the work of contemporary Muslim thinker Morteza Motahharî. In his
book entitled Training and Education in Islam, he subdivides nafs into “personal and
individual ‘self’ … [which is] related to physical and corporeal dimensions” and “a true
‘self’ … that is … an essence which is not that of matter or nature; rather, it is celestial
and majestic in origins; it is of another World.” Motahharî considers this latter “true self”
to be the rûḥ, and writes:
This true “self” is the same thing which is mentioned by the Qur’ân in this
manner: So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My
Spirit [rûḥî]. To pay attention to this “self” menas finding out and
discerning the essence of one’s humanity… It is of knowledge; it is
contrary to ignorance. It is of light; it is in contrast to darkness.67
Finally, the third group, such as Shâh Walî Allâh (1114-1176H), presents a complicated
and confusing model in which rûḥ and nafs are “floating” concepts. Sometimes they
become one, and sometimes they take so much distance from each other that one might
Al-Râzî [in his book, Spiritual Physic] … mentions the three kinds of Platonic soul: first the
rational and divine, second the irascible and animal, and third the vegetative, incremental and
appetitive. Al-Râzî considers that all things belonging to passion make the first soul, that is the
rational and the divine, weak, and add to the strength of the two others. Man must therefore with
the help of both spiritual and bodily medicine harmonize the action of the three kinds of soul so
that they do not fail nor overdo what is expected of them.
This opinion of Râzî, as Mohaghegh briefly mentions it, has been criticized and refused by Aristotelian
Muslim philosopher of his era. See Mehdi Mohaghegh, “Notes on the ‘Spiritual Physic’ of Al-Râzî.” Studia
Islamica, No. 26 (1967): 5-22 (pp. 10-11).
65
See M. Ṣaghîr Ḥasan Ma‘sûmî, trans. Imâm Râzi’s ‘Ilm al-Akhlâq: Kitâb al-Nafs wa al-Rûḥ wa Sharḥ
Quwâhumâ. Islâmâbâd: Islamic Research Institute (1970). Distributed by Oxford University Press.
66
See Kojiro Nakamura, “Imâm Ghazâlî’s Cosmology Reconsidered with Special Reference to the
Concept of ‘Jabarût’.” Studia Islamica, No. 80 (1994): 29-46 (p. 35).
67
Mortezâ Motahharî, Training & Education in Islam. Translated by Mansoor Limba. London: ICAS
Press, 2011 (p. 198).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
202
consider them as opposites, a kind of via negativa for each other.68
Western scholars of Islam reflect Muslim erudites in that they too can be divided
into the same three branches of opinions when it comes to the difference between nafs
and rûḥ.69
Some prefer nafs and rûḥ to be two independent concepts with an
interdependent relationship, and –often to the extent of trying to define one by the other–
include them in their works one after the other. To this group of scholars, the human
being is composed of jasad, nafs and rûḥ. Jane Idleman Smith is among the scholars who
follow this understanding, as reflected in her study of tafâsîr on the relationship between
nafs and rûḥ. Her article entitled The Understanding of Nafs and Rûḥ in Contemporary
Muslim Considerations of the Nature of Sleep and Death, published in 1979, was soon
followed in 1981 by a book co-authored with Yvonne Haddad, entitled The Islamic
Understanding of Death and Resurrection.70
Although this book’s main focus is on death,
it studies, among other things, the diversity of Muslim erudites’ opinions on the question
of nafs and rûḥ. While in her writings, Smith uses nafs and rûḥ in the multiple ways that
Muslim authors have used both, she criticises them for their careless use of these two
terms and their constant shifts of meaning between nafs and rûḥ.71
Later, in another
68 In her article entitled Shâh Walî Allâh’s Theory of the Subtle Spiritual Centers (Laṭâ’if), Marcia K.
Hermansen tries to explain Shâh Walî Allâh’s theory of human being. To deal with the confusing nature of
Shâh Walî’s theory, Hermansen asks her readership not to be confused with Shâh Walî’s different usages of
the term rûḥ with different significations. See Marcia K. Hermansen, “Shâh Walî Allâh’s Theory of the
Subtle Spiritual Centers (Laṭâ’if): A Sufî Model of Personhood and Self-Transformation.” Journal of Near
Eastern Studies, vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan. 1988): 1-25 (p. 7). For an example of this latter works see Saeid Nazari
Tavakkoli, “A Comparison between Brain Death and Unstable Life: “Shi’ite” Perspective.” Journal of Law
and Religion, vol. 23, No. 2 (2007/2008): 605-627.
69
While working with the concept of the nafs in Islam, some Western scholars in ethnographic studies
focus on a Muslim tribal pattern according to which the nafs (being the dominant aspect of female’s life), is
an opposite of the ‘aql (being the dominant aspect of male’s life). This, of course is not confirmed by the
Qur’ân, and is out of context for this thesis. For some examples see Lawrence Rosen, Bargaining for
Reality: The Construction of Social Relations in a Muslim Community. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1984. Also see Lila Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society.
Updated with a New Preface. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.
70
Jane Idleman Smith , “The Understanding of Nafs and Rûḥ in Contemporary Muslim Considerations of
the Nature of Sleep and Death.” Muslim World vol. 49, No. 3 (July 1979): 151-62. Also Jane Idleman
Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002. 71
For some more examples of Western scholars who do the same choice as Smith about the dichotomy of
nafs and rûḥ See Angelika Hartman, “Cosmogonie et doctrine de l’âme dans l’oeuvre tardive de ‘Umar as-
Suhrawardî (M. 632/1234).” Quaderni di Studi Arabi, vol. 11 (1993): 163-178. Also see Amber Haque,
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
203
article, she concludes:
The matter of soul (nafs) and spirit (rûḥ) is somewhat more complex. It is
not the task of this essay to analyze the distinction drawn by the
commentators between these terms (or the lack thereof). We may simply
observe here that sometimes the exegetes use nafs exclusively, sometimes
translate the Qur’ânic use of soul immediately to spirit, sometimes
interchange the terms, and occasionally attempt to define the relationship
between them.72
A second group of Western scholars accepts rûḥ as a subcategory of nafs. For example,
Sufia Uddin has an article on the story of Joseph in the Qur’ân and the interpretation of
the Sufî mufassir al-Qushayrî (986-1072H) on this Qur’ânic narrative. On the one hand,
at the beginning of her article, Uddin mentions that: “According to the Sufîs, there are
three human principles. They are the nafs (self), the qalb (heart) and the rûḥ (soul). The
lowest principle is the nafs.”73
On the other hand, throughout her article, Uddin shows
how, for Qushayrî, both qalb and rûḥ are higher stages for nafs, and that nafs must try to
“climb” them one after the other.
A third group of Western scholars follows the floating concept of nafs.74
This
confusing classification of nafs can be mostly found in the works of those scholars who
study Sufî perceptions of nafs. For example, on the very first page of his article entitled
The Perfect Man as the Prototype of the Self in the Sufism of Jâmî, published in 1979,
William C. Chittick writes:
In the context of Jâmî’s technical terminology it [nafs] can probably best
“Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to
Contemporary Muslim Psychologists.” Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 43, No. 4 (Winter 2004): 357-
377. Also see Soumaya Pernilla Ouis, “Islamic Ecotheology Based on the Qur’ân.” Islamic Studies, vol. 37,
No. 2 (Summer 1998): 151-181. This list will be incomplete without mentioning the classical yet important
book of Father O’shaughnessy on rûḥ. See Tomas O’Shaughnessy, The Development of the Meaning of
Spirit in the Koran. Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1953.
72
Smith, Jane Idleman. “Concourse between the Living and the Dead in Islamic Eschatological
Literature.” History of Religions, vol. 19, No. 3 (Feb. 1980): 224-236 (p. 225).
73
Sufia Uddin, “Mystical Journey or Mysogynist Assault? Al-Qushayrî’s Interpretation of Sulaikhâ’s
Attempted Seduction of Yusuf,” 9, available online at
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jis/article/viewFile/39957/54920 (consulted on Aug. 7th
2012).
74
Chad Kia who belongs to this group believes that Muslims inherited this perception of the self from
medieval Christianity. See Chad Kia, “Is the Bearded Man Drowning? Picturing the Figurative in a Late-
Fifteenth-Century Painting from Herat.” Muqarnas, vol. 23 (2006): 85-105 (p. 96).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
204
be rendered as “soul”. It usually refers to the animating principle of the
body, the intermediary between the bodily constitution and the spirit, or to
the immortal aspect of man’s being which can be perfected through the
spiritual life.75
Chittick’s explanation of Jâmî’s perception of nafs as “soul” shows to what extent the
distinction between nafs and rûḥ in some Sufî works is vague.76
On the one hand, nafs is
the intermediary between jasad and rûḥ; on the other, the immortal rûḥ “can be perfected
through the spiritual life,” a capacity that the Qur’ân exclusively attributes to the nafs and
not to the rûḥ. Many years later, in his book entitled Sufism: A Short Introduction,
Chittick unhappily claims:
The only way we can pretend to know our selves in order to help our
selves is to bury our selves in false knowledge, pretending to know what
we do not and cannot know. People do this by defining the self in limited
terms –biological terms, anthropological terms, psychological terms,
historical terms, economic terms, social terms, ideological terms,
theological terms, Islamist terms. These failed attempts to understand the
self go a long way toward explaining the historically unprecedented blood-
letting of the twentieth century.77
It is not insignificant to mention that a few Western scholars solve the problem of the
relationship between nafs and rûḥ by erasing the question, thereby wiping the problem
out. These scholars feel free to shift between nafs and rûḥ as if they are two terms that
equally refer to the exact same meaning.78
3.2.3 rûḥ versus nafs
Unlike numerous appearances of nafs, the noun rûḥ appears only twenty-one times in the
75
William C. Chittick, “The Perfect Man as the Prototype of the Self in the Sufism of Jâmî.” Studia
Islamica, No. 49 (1979): 135-157 (p. 135).
76
As Chittick explains it, Sufîs are not interested in drawing lines between mystical concepts. In fact, this
ambiguity is not exclusively between nafs and rûḥ. nafs has also vague and faded borders with other
important concepts such as dil (heart), sirr (secret), and khafî (hidden).
77
William C. Chittick, Sufism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000 (p. 50).
78
For an example see Saeid Nazari Tavakkoli, “A Comparison between Brain Death and Unstable Life:
“Shi’ite” Perspective.” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 23, No. 2 (2007/2008): 605-627.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
205
Qur’ân: four times in the composition of rûḥ al-qudus (the holy spirit),79
once in the
composition of al-rûḥ al-amîn (the truthful spirit or the Archangel Jibrîl),80
six times with
the three possessive pronouns of nâ (in rûḥanâ meaning Our Spirit),81
or î (in rûḥî
imeaning My Spirit),82
or hî (in rûḥihî meaning His Spirit),83
once with min amrinâ (in
rûḥan min amrinâ (lit. a spirit from our command),84
and twice with minh (in rûḥin/
rûḥun minh meaning a spirit from Him).85
Finally, the definite noun of al-rûḥ (The Spirit)
appears seven times.86
This thesis aims to clarify the definitions of nafs and rûḥ, and their relationship to
one another.87
The reason this thesis is interested in these two concepts is that these two
terms are used in relation to Jesus as a fully human prophet, as well as for the key roles
79 In 2:87, 253; 5:110; 16:102.
80
In 26:193.
81
In 19:17; 21:91; 66:12.
82
In 15:29; 38:72. Together, 15:29; 32:9 and 38:72 present an anthropogenic image in which God
breathes into Adam and/or human of His rûḥ. Mufassirûn are unanimous that this suggests that rûḥ is a
substantial element of the human’s nature.
83
In 32:9.
84
In 42:52.
85
In 4:171; 58:22.
86
In 16:2; 17:85 (twice); 40:15; 70:4; 78:38; 97:4.
87
In the footnote 15 of his article entitled Sound, Spirit, and Gender in Sûrat Al-Qadr, Michael Sells lists
some scholarly works focusing on rûḥ in the Qur’ân. His list is up to the date of his publication, but does
not include works in languages other than English. He writes:
For a discussion of rûḥ in the Qur’ân see Thomas O’Shaughnessy, The Development of
the Meaning of Spirit in the Koran. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953.
O’Shaughnessy provides a commentary on each Qur’ânic proof text, a commentary
concerned primarily with the possible extra-Qur’ânic sources for the differing Qur’ânic
treatments of rûḥ. Earlier treatments include D. B. MacDonald, “The Development of the
Idea of Spirit in Islam.” Acta Orientalia 9 (1931): 307-51; and E. E. Calverley,
“Doctrines of the Soul (Nafs and Rûḥ) in Islam.” Moslem World 33 (1943): 254-65; also a
revision of Wensinck’s article Nafs in EII, 3:827-30. For Calverley and Wensinck, rûḥ is
a “special angel messenger and a special divine gift” (Calverley, 254). MacDonald makes
a four-set division: passages in which the rûḥ is identified with Jibrîl; with a “personality
apart from the angels” (70:4, 78:38, 97:4); with the “Angel of Revelation” (2:87, 253;
5:110; 16:102) -and here he cites various opinions on 2:87 (Jibrîl, the spirit of ‘Isâ, the
injîl, the “Most Great Name of Allâh by which ‘Isâ raised the dead,” the “kalâm by which
the dîn or the nafs are vivified to eternal life and purified from sins”; and four passages
(16:2; 17:85; 40:15; 42:52) where rûḥ is combined with amr, where it can mean wahï, the
Qur’an, a spiritual influence rather than a person (pp. 308-14, with verse numbers
adjusted to the Egyptian standard). For tafsîr treatments of the word rûḥ in 2:87 see
Mahmoud Ayoub, The Qur’an and Its Interpreters, vol. 1. Albany: State Univ. of New
York Press, 1984. (pp. 124-25).
See Michael Sells, “Sound, Spirit, and Gender in Sûrat Al-Qadr.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society, vol. 111, No. 2 (April-June 1991): 239-259 (p. 244).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
206
they play in the Qur’ânic narrative on Jesus’ last day on earth. To define them, I use a
contextual lower critical approach to find differences between their characteristics as
presented in their various occurances in the Qur’ân. To do so, I therefore follow Râzi’s
model according to which nafs and rûḥ are two independent substantial elements of
human being’s composition that function interdependently.
3.2.4 nafs, rûḥ, and the Qur’ânic Theory of nafs
A quick glance at the various Qur’ânic appearances of nafs reveals that this term almost
never appears in a verbal form.88
The only appearance is in 83:25 and, despite this one
occurance in the Qur’ân, this exceptional verbal form is so rare that it is not even
mentioned in many Arabic dictionaries.89
Despite this nonexistence of nafs mirroring a specific human action in the
Qur’ân’s model for human life, nafs, except in its one time verbal form, is dominantly
present as a concept behind all human deeds. While the Qur’ân considers nafs as an
independent powerful entity given to human beings, no Qur’ânic âyah leads to believe
that humans can use their rûḥ to do anything but being physically alive (not to be
confused with being conscious).90
88 Although rûḥ appears three times as the gerund of its first verbal form (rawḥ being the gerund of râḥa
yarûḥu) twice in 12:8and once in 56:89, both rûḥ and nafs appear only once under a verbal form. The only
verbal appearance of rûḥ in the Qur’ân can be read in in 16:6 (under its fourth vebal form being turîḥu),
and it reads: “And wherein [in your cattle] is beauty for you, when ye bring them home [in the evening],
and when ye take them out to pasture [in the morning].” The only Qur’ânic appearance of a verbal form of
nafs is in 83:26 where the Qur’ân says: “… and their thirst [The inhabitants of paradise’s thirst] will be
slaked with Pure Wine sealed: The seal thereof will be musk: and for this let those aspire, who have
aspirations.” (83:25-6). This is the ending sentence of a Qur’ânic long description of life in paradise, and it
suggests that the comparison (positive or negative) comes from and dwells in the nafs. I checked several
mufassirûn such as Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî, Râzî, and Ṭabâṭabâ’î, and they do not seem to pay attention to this
unique usage of nafs under a verbal form, so none of them goes further than the literary definition of the
verb.
89
I checked Lisân al-‘Arab, Maqâyîs al-Lugha, Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha, Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ, and Al-‘Ibâb
al-Zâkhir.Only the two first dictionaries mention tanafûs under nafs. Instead, all five discuss in detail that
the gerund of the first verbal form of trilateral root of nafasa (n, f, s) is nafas (breath) which is different
from nafs.
90
This reception of God’s Rûḥ by Adam is the last stage of his formation mentioned in 15:29 and 38:72.
Then in 32:9, the Qur’ân mentions the same procedure for the creation of al-insân (the human). Mufassirûn
are unanimous that insân in 32:9 refers to the genus of human, so each and every human is born with the
same rûḥ breathed into Adam. 32:8-11 read:
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
207
The Qur’ânic theory of nafs pictures human beings as creatures 1) who are
exclusively gifted with the “divine quality” of a nafs. 2) This nafs has a changing quality,
either elevating or pulling down the human being. So, 3) a human being remains
constantly challenged, pushed, and pulled by it over his or her lifetime. 4) A human being
can enter into interaction with his/her soul, taming it first, and then training it to the
extent of taking control over it, and 5) using its faculties/capacities so as to be driven in
the direction of al-ṣirâṭ al-mustaqîm. Gender is not an issue in that picture, and 6) both
men and women are equally challenged, 7) some nafs are more powerful than others, and
are able to bear more.91
More importantly 8) everyone’s nafs has been individually
preplanned by God, and all changes in any nafs reflects the will of God. Finally, 9) nafs is
responsible for what human accomplishes or fail to do, and it will be eternally
resurrected, judged, punished, forgiven, or rewarded in the afterlife. 10) None of these
descriptive statements about nafs is true about rûḥ.92
The following is some examples and explanations for the first nine statements of
my theory. Together with the tenth one, they form the Qur’ânic image of human beings
vis-à-vis nafs and rûḥ.
1) nafs is an exclusive gift that God shares with humans. Many âyahs clarify that
God has nafs. For example part of 6:12 reads: “Say [O Prophet]: ‘Unto whom belongeth
whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth? Say: Unto Allah. He hath prescribed for
…He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay; And made his progeny
from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised[;] But He fashioned him in due
proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties
of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!
91
One might consider 33:50 as an example for a more gender oriented nafs. The âyah uses the patriarchal
expression of “offering herself to the Prophet” to talk about a woman who wills to marry the Prophet.
Nothing in the âyah prevents its readership from expanding the expression to men and generalising it by
saying: “a man offering himself to a woman” meaning “a man wanting to marry a woman.” Of course, the
cultural context of the Prophet’s era might have not preferred such a usage, but the Qur’ân leaves the door
open to cultural changes and evolutions.
92
It is important to mention that this subdivision of human’s nature into three elements of body, soul and
spirit is not new at all. For example, the early Christian philosopher Origen Adamantius (185-254 C.E.) is
among the first Christian theologians who discussed the human being’s trichotomy of body, soul and spirit.
In his major work De Principiis (book 4, section 11), Origen presents the conviction that a human being is
composed of body, soul and spirit. He also believes in three layers of meaning for the Christian Scriptures,
those being literal, moral and mystical. He correlates those three layers of meaning to the humans’
trichotomy of body, soul and spirit. See Paul Koetschau, trans. On First Principles. New York: Harper and
Row. 1996. E-published by New Advent website, available online at
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm (consulted on May 31st
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
208
Himself [His nafs] mercy, that He may bring you all together to the Day of Resurrection
whereof there is no doubt. Those who ruin their souls will not believe.” The Qur’ânic
examples of human nafs are numerous. One of the best examples can be found in 14:22
where once Adam and Eve have gone astray, Satan blames them and says: “… I had no
authority over you except to call you, but ye listened not to me: then reproach not me, but
reproach your own souls.” Another good example is in 24:66. Part of it reads: “But when
ye enter houses, salute one another [salute each other’s nafs] with a greeting from Allah,
blessed and sweet.” The Qur’ân talks about the human nafs hundreds of times. Yet, one
cannot find a single Qur’ânic âyah where nafs would be used for other creatures such as
animals.93
Unlike nafs, however, rûḥ seems to be common among all living creatures.
3:49 presents a narrative about one of Jesus’ miracles where he says: “… I fashion for
you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah’s leave
...” Knowing that according to the Qur’ân, Jesus himself is created by God’s breath of
His rûḥ into Mary’s womb,94
one might conclude that he is passing the same rûḥ into the
likeness of the bird, giving it “life” by doing so. This might mean that rûḥ is the
substance that makes and/or keeps animals and human beings alive.95
2) nafs has a steady changing nature. While dwelling on earth, it elevates or
retrogrades on a challenging path. The hierarchy of nafs has been discussed by so many
93 As far as I could search, I did not find any Muslim or Western scholarly work on the question of djinns
being included or excluded with the gift of nafs. However âyah 18:51 might suggest that like humans,
djinns are also gifted with nafs. This possibility matches the fact that according to the Qur’ân humans and
djinns are the only creatures who can disobey God, and nafs seems to be the blameworthy source of this
power. 18:51 reads: “I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own
creation [nor the creation of their anfus]; nor choose I misleaders for (My) helpers.” Some mufassirûn such
as Ṭabarî believe that “them” at the beginning of the âyah refers to “Iblis who was of the djinns and his
seed,” thus “their anfus” will mean “the anfus of Satan and his helpers.” Some others such as Râzî refuse
this interpretation and believe that here “them” refers to “those kuffâr [pagans] who told the Prophet: if you
do not expulse these poor people from around yourself, we will not believe in you,” thus “their anfus”
means “the anfus of those pagans.” From a literalist viewpoint, the first interpretation confirms that the
quality of nafs is shared with djinns, but the second one does not suggest it. See Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân
fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 18:51, available online at www.almeshkat.net; also see Al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-
Ghayb, under 18:51, available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (both sources
consulted on Aug. 1st 2012).
94 In 21:91 and 66:12.
95 Sûrah 81 of the Qur’ân gives images of the resurrection. While in âyahs 7 and 14 nafs is the key term for
the humans’ resurrection, it is absent and replaced by wuhûsh (beasts) in âyah 5 talking about the animals’
resurrection. 81:5-14 read: “And when the wild beasts are herded together, …And when souls are reunited,
… (Then) every soul will know what it hath made ready.”
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
209
Muslim erudites in different fields of Islamic Sciences. The Qur’ân presents a five stages
hierarchy according to which human nafs can climb up or fall back between the following
five stages, presented here from the lowest to the highest stage: nafs al-‘ammârah (the
nafs inclined to Evil),96
nafs al-lawwâmah (the self-reproaching nafs),97
nafs al-
muṭma’innah (the tranquil nafs),98
nafs al-râḍiyah (the well pleased nafs),99
nafs al-
marḍiyyah (the nafs well pleasing unto God).100
On cannot find such a Qur’ânic
categorization for rûḥ. This suggests that unlike nafs, rûḥ has one nature, the
unchangeable divine nature that can not be elevated or fallen from.
3) According to the Qur’ân, human’s perceptive faculties such as need, desire,
emotion, and appetite dwell in nafs.101
This capacity enables nafs to embrace good
through the experience of positive states such as hope, love, patience, or to adopt evil
through the experience of negative attitudes such as jealousy, miserliness, pride, and
fear.102
Also reflection happens in nafs.103
The best example for this nafs’ dual power is
the human power of speech.104
The Qur’ân mentions that nafs is where the knowledge
and the memory dwell.105
Also it is in nafs that the rational usage of words takes shape
and speech is born. So nafs is the source of both right and wrong speech. Part of 11:105
reads: “On the day when it cometh no soul will speak except by His permission …” Also
nafs pushes and pulls, tempts and blames, and human must strengthen and stabilize it in
the highest possible stage. 2:265 reads: “And the likeness of those who spend their wealth
in search of Allah’s pleasure, and for the strengthening of their souls, is as the likeness of
96 In 12:53.
97
In 75:2.
98
In 89:27.
99
In 89:28.
100
Some Sufî streams believe in a seven stages scale for nafs putting nafs al-mulhama (the inspiring nafs)
after the self-reproaching nafs, and adding a seventh final stage called nafs al-kâmila (the perfect or
perfected nafs). See Bernd Radtke, “Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a Provisional Appraisal.”
Die Welt des Islams, New Series, vol. 36, Issue 3, Islamic Enlightenment in the 18thCentury? (Nov. 1996):
326-364 (pp. 330-1, 348).
101
For need see 4:65. For desire see 79:41. For emotion see 35:8. For appetite see 43:71.
102
For hope see 2:87. For love see 33:37. For patience see 18:28. For jealousy see 2:109. For miserliness
see 4:128. For pride see 25:21. For fear see 20:67.
103
See 59:18. Although the verb in this âyah is “to look to,” it is an allegory to say: “to think about.”
104
The Qir’ânic image of the day of judgment includes nafs’ talking to itself (39:56), and struggling and
discussing for its salvation. 16:111 reads: “On the Day when every soul will come pleading for itself, …”
105
For the knowledge see 3:30; 13:42; 31:34; 81:14 or 82:5. For the memory see 7:205.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
210
a garden on a height. The rainstorm smiteth it and it bringeth forth its fruit twofold. And
if the rainstorm smite it not, then the shower. Allah is Seer of what ye do.”
4) Although as a substantial element of human’s existence, nafs contributes to the
“being” of the human, the Qur’ân suggests a strong interaction between human and this
part of his or her own “being.” On the one hand, nafs tempts, orders, or even judges its
owner.106
On the other, humans must initiate interactions with his or her nafs until it is
under control. 79:40-1 reads: “But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and
restrained his soul from lust, Lo! the Garden will be his home.”107
In fact, the Qur’ân
introduces nafs as one of God’s âyahs, and invites its audience to interact with it also
collectively by pondering upon their own anfus, knowing them and finally taking control
over them.108
30:8 reads: “Have they not pondered upon themselves? Allah created not
the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, save with truth and for a
destined end. But truly many of mankind are disbelievers in the meeting with their
Lord.”109
The Qur’ân is clear that whatever humans do, they do it for or against their own
nafs. With an indifferent tone, 17:7 announces: “… If ye do good, ye do good for your
own souls, and if ye do evil, it is for them (in like manner).” The Qur’ân repeatedly
suggests to believers to take control of their nafs to the extent of “selling it to God.” In
fact, this allegorical commerce of the nafs (selling one’s nafs to God or selling it to Evil)
stands at the two ultimate ends of the Qur’ânic spectrum of what one can do with his/her
106 For an example of nafs tempting its owner see 50:16. For an example of nafs ordering its owner see
12:53. For an example of nafs judging its owner see 17:14.
107
Nothing in the âyah is gender biased or oriented, but Pickthall translates it as “As for him who …,”and
Ahmed Ali follows him. To avoid this problem, Yusuf Ali translates it in plural form and writes: “As for
those who …”
108
In an individual level, there are numerous aḥâdîth encouraging a Muslim to aim to know his or her
own nafs. Many muḥâddithûn have narrated and discussed those aḥâdîth in detail. For example Ibn abi al-
Ḥadîd (586-656H) narrates a long ḥadîth from ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib in which, among others he says: “…
whoever does not have a preacher in his/her nafs, does not have a refuge/protect in God, indeed whoever
renders justice to his/her nafs, Allâh adds to his/her glory and honor…” See Abu Bakr ‘Abdullâh b.
Muḥammad ibn abi al-Ḥadîd, Sharḥ Nahj al-Balâgha. 1st ed. 20 vols. Edited by Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Karîm
al-Namrî. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah, 1418H (vol 4, ḥadîth 109 and 110). E-publsihed by al-
Maktaba al-Shâmila, available online at http://shamela.ws/rep.php/book/4355 (consulted on July 4th
2012).
109
See also 41:53 or 51:21.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
211
life.110
The best examples for the two extremes of this spectrum can be read in 9:111 and
2:89-90. 9:111 reads: “Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their
wealth because the Garden will be theirs …”111
and 2:89-90 reads:
…The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. Evil is that for which they sell
their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed,
grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His
bondmen. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a
shameful doom.
5) From the very beginning of its opening by Sûrah Al-Fâtiḥa (1:6), the Qur’ân is crystal
clear that the ultimate goal of the revelation is to guide humanity towards al-ṣîrâṭ al-
mustaqîm. Practicing Muslims recite this sûrah at least five times in their daily prayers,
asking Allâh to guide them to (or show them) the straight path. Any Muslim would agree
with Mawdûdi who believes that “this is the straight path, al-ṣîrâṭ al-mustaqim of the
daily prayers, which human history would have taken had the guidance of Muḥammad
110 To Ḥârith b. Asad al-Muḥâsibî (748-857), the founder of Muhâsaba school of Sufism, nafs must be
defined by and understood through its double dichotomous nature. S. Filiz studies Muhâsibî’s definition of
the nafs and writes:
… al-Muḥâsibî defines the soul as “an agent which leads one to sin and evil.” The soul,
he goes on to say, is stained by such diseases as arrogance, hypocrisy, excessive pride and
egotism, self-admiration, malice, greed, the desire to leade an immortal life in the world,
and extravagance. However, the human soul is quite different from a “submissive slave.”
The former is aware of all these diseases but cannot discern the good in what he or she is
ordered. In contrast to the slave, the soul cannot perceive the present or long-term good in
what he or she is ordered. One can infer from al-Muḥâsibî’s exposition that (1) the soul
has a double nature and leans both to good and evil; (2) the soul is neither matter nor part
of matter nor accident; rather, it is substance.
See Sahin Filiz, “The Founder of the Muḥâsibî School of Sufism: Al-Ḥârith ibn Asad al-Muḥâsibî.” Islamic
Studies, vol. 45, No. 1 (Spring 2006): 59-81 (pp. 70-1).
111
While writing this page, it dawned on me that the organizers of the tragic events of September 11th
2001 in New York City (popularly known as 9/11) might have used this âyah as a clue for making a
decision about the date of their mission. Not only a literalist interpretation of its content can perfectly
legitimize their jihadi attack, but also the number of the âyah can represent the date on which the attack
took place (9:111 or the 9th
day of the 11th
month of the year 01). Of course, this is a raw hypothesis, and it
requires careful studies by experts of the field. But if proven, it will be another example of to what extent
different interpretations of the Qur’ân can have different impacts on the peace on earth. The âyah in full
reads:
Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden
will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a
promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ân. Who
fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made,
for that is the supreme triumph.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
212
been truly followed.”112
This hidâyah (divine guidance), as well as ḍilâlah (going astray)
has been repeatedly attributed to the nafs. 39:41reads: “Then whosoever goeth right it is
for his soul, and whosoever strayeth, strayeth only to its hurt. And thou [O Prophet] art
not a warder over them.”113
6) In all of the 398 Qur’ânic appearances of the term nafs, one cannot find a single
instance where the Qur’ân makes a distinction between men’s nafs and women’s nafs.114
Besides the countless times that the masculine possessive pronoun includes both men and
women in Qur’ânic Arabic, the few instances in which there are references to humans as
the owner of the nafs, the choice of masculine is a matter of grammatical perfection. For
example, Pickthall respects the gender of the masculine possessive pronoun of nafs in
75:14, and translates it as “Oh, but man is a telling witness against himself,” but gender
wise, a better translation would be: “Oh, but human is a telling witness against his nafs.”
In this latter translation “his” reflects the gender of the term insân (human) and nothing
more.115
It is disturbing to know that in other instances where the same grammatical
reason favors a translation of nafs’ feminine possessive pronoun, Pickthall chooses a
neutral position and ignores the genders of the concerned terms. For example, he
translates 16:111 as: “On the Day when every soul will come pleading for itself, and
every soul will be repaid what it did, and they will not be wronged.” If one follows
Pickthall’s own approach in 75:14, the result would be: “On the Day when every soul
will come pleading for herself, and every soul will be repaid what she did, and they
[masculine plural pronoun] will not be wronged.”116
7) The Qur’ân makes it clear that different nafs have different “capacities,” a
limited “scope” that God has given to every nafs at different levels. This difference is
112 Eran Lerman, “Mawdudi’s Concept of Islam.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct. 1981): 492-
509 (p. 505).
113
Also see 10:108; 17:15; and 27:92.
114
The only exceptions of course, are when nafs in a Qur’ânic narrative refers to a specific person’ nafs.
An example for a woman’s nafs (the nafs of a woman interested in marrying the Prophet) can be read in
33:50, and an example for a man’s nafs (the Caen’s nafs) can be read in 5:30.
115
Although in his translation of 75:14, Ahmed Ali does not use his gender neutral approach of 79:40-1,
such an attempt would result a better free translation of the âyah. The âyah would then mean: “Oh, but [on
the day of judgment] humans are telling witnesses against themselves.”
116
The fact that the âyah finishes with a masculine plural third person subjective pronoun is the best proof
for the fact that all female genders of terms must be ignored in the comprehension of the âyah. Same reality
must be applied to âyahs where masculine terms are dominant.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
213
reflected in all aspects of human life from bodily competences to intellectual capabilities
or even spiritual capacities.117
The ending âyah of the longest Qur’ânic sûrah (Sûrah Al-
Baqara) clarifies that: “Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that
which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved … Our Lord!
Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear! Pardon us, absolve us and
have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.”
(2:286).118
In 65:7, the Qur’ân reformulates this statement in passive tense and proclaims
Allâh as the donator of nafs’capacities. It reads: “… Allah asketh naught of any soul save
that which He hath given it. Allah will vouchsafe, after hardship, ease.119
8) As mentioned in the second chapter of this thesis, the Qur’ân puts an emphasis
on the fact that God is the one who guides towards himself (or towards the Truth and/or
the straight path) if He wills, and he is the one who leads astray if human’s own deeds
command and compel it.120
All this happens in the nafs. The two following âyahs give a
picture of how nafs is God’s tool to propel humans to His throne or to expel them from
His Mercy. This Qur’ânic picture, abandoning the human guidance or misguidance in the
hands of God, gives the impression of a preplanned destiny for each human mapped by
God in the nafs.121
The first âyah is 32:13. It reads: “And if We had so willed, We could
have given every soul its guidance …” The second âyah is 10:100. It reads: “It is not for
any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those
117 For both bodily power and intellectual capability see 2:247. For spiritual capacities see 8:2 and
compare it to 7:188.
118
Many mufassirûn including Ṭabarî, Râzi, and Ṭabâṭabâ’î mention the possibility of this âyah being
abrogated by 2:286. They narrate various aḥâdîth according to which once the Prophet recites this âyah for
Muslims, some companions of the Prophet (their names are different in different tafâsîr) go to him and
complain about this imposition being beyond their tolerance. They argue that they (read humans) have no
control over their sinful thoughts. The Prophet blames them and says: “Say: ‘we heard and we obeyed!’”
They do so, and soon after 2:286 is revealed abrogating it and bringing the good tiding that “Allah tasketh
not a soul beyond its scope …”
119
Also see 6:152 and 23:62.
120
See 33:37 and 35:8.
121
This concept of a predestined nafs is more clearly explained in 57:22. It reads: “Naught of disaster
befalleth in the earth or in yourselves but it is in a Book before we bring it into being - Lo! that is easy for
Allah.” Ṭabâṭabâ’î believes that here “book” is an allegory referring to “the knowledge of God,” and not to
a physical book somewhere in the skies. But even accepting it as God’s knowledge does not change a lot
the concept of a predestined nafs.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
214
who have no sense.”122
9) Finally, the nafs is responsible for human’s both thoughts and deeds, and will
be judged, punished, forgiven or rewarded eternally.123
This means that according to the
Qur’ân, nafs is an eternal being and lives for an eternity. In other words, the Qur’ânic
concept of salvation is exclusively the salvation of the nafs. Here, rûḥ is totally out of the
picture, and body is not emphasized on.124
14:48-51 are among numerous âyahs that
mention the judgment of the nafs. They read:
On the day when the earth will be changed to other than the earth, and the
heavens (also will be changed) and they will come forth unto Allah, the
One, the Almighty, … That Allah may repay each soul what it hath earned.
Lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.125
10:54 completes this picture and announces:
And if each soul that doeth wrong had all that is in the earth it would seek
to ransom itself therewith; and they will feel remorse within them, when
they see the doom. But it hath been judged between them fairly and they
are not wronged.126
122 Even the most powerful nafs which is the nafs of the Prophet is not an exception. 7:188 reads: “Say:
For myself I have no power to benefit, nor power to hurt, save that which Allah willeth. Had I knowledge
of the Unseen, I should have abundance of wealth, and adversity would not touch me. I am but a warner,
and a bearer of good tidings unto folk who believe.”
123
Most mutikallimûn and falâsifa agree on the fact that the nafs is what will receive the reward or the
punishment in the afterlife. As Mehdi Mohaghegh explains it, last chapter of Râzî’s book entitled Al-Tibb
al-Rûḥânî, focuses on the fear of death. According to Mohaghegh, in order to explain this fear, Râzî makes
a distinction between the religions believing that at death the nafs perishes with the body and nothing
remains to be harmed afterward (Eastern Religions), and those believing that the nafs does not perish at
death, and there will be a life after death (Western Religions). To Mohaghegh, this centrality of nafs in
Râzî’s thoughts about the afterlife has been accepted and copied by many Muslim thinkers such as Ibn Sînâ
and Ibn Ḥazm. See Mohaghegh, “Notes on the ‘Spiritual Physic’ of Al-Râzî,” 20-1.
124
In fact, despite the Qur’ân’s emphasis on the bodily resurrection of humans on the day of judgment, the
presence of human body (its members) in the Qur’ânic image of the heavens is much lower than its
presence in the image of the hell. While just in one occasion eyes are mentioned in the context of the
heavenly rewarded life (43:71), many human organs are mentioned in the context of the punishment and
life in the hell (i.e. hand in 24:40, skin in 4:56, stomach in 22:20; face in 25:34; leg in 6:65; tongue in
24:24; mouth in 36:65; etc.).
125
Also see 10:30; 20:15; 21:47; 36:54; 40:17; 50:21; 82:5.
126
Also see 2:48 and 3:30, 161. Some other âyahs talk about the possibility of an intercession by God’s
permission (i.e. 19:87; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26). For example 20:109 says: “On that Day shall no intercession
avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by (Allah) Most Gracious and whose word is
acceptable to Him.” The combination of these two images (nafs being anxious to ransom itself, and the
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
215
The punishment of the nafs appears in few âyahs. For example 6:93 reads:
… If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of
confusion at death!― the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying) ‘Yield
up your souls. This day shall ye receive your reward a penalty of shame,
for that ye used to tell lies against Allah, and scornfully to reject of His
Signs!’
Also, the nafs enjoys the eternal rewards in the heavens. 43:71 reads: “Therein are
brought round for them [inhabitants of the heavens] trays of gold and goblets, and therein
is all that souls desire and eyes find sweet. And ye are immortal therein.” The last
sentence of the âyah is enough to believe in an eternal life of nafs in the Qur’ânic
presentation of the afterlife.
The eternal punishment and/or reward of nafs explained in this last point raises a
simple yet important question: what happens to the nafs of deceased people? In other
words, does nafs die? What about rûḥ? Does rûḥ die or its nature is beyond life and
death?127
While these questions have been discussed by many Muslim erudites, one
cannot find a definitive consensus among them in trying to answer these questions.
However, the main common point among different opinions elaborated within different
schools of Islamic thought is that despite some differences in aḥâdîth used as references,
in order to find answers to these questions, they all refer to the same final source, the
Qur’ân. So any rethinking or reconsideration about death and resurrection in Islam, at
acceptance of some intercessions on the day of judgment) opens the door to the forgiveness as a third
possible end (besides punishment and reward) for the nafs.
127
A major problem that occurs from the very beginning of any effort to find an answer to these questions
is the “non-standardized” and confusing use of nafs and rûḥ as technical terms in Muslim scriptures. A
recent example is an official statement of al-Makhlûf, the Mufti of Egypt issued in 1947. As explained by
Jane I. Smith:
Among the points Makhlûf articulated in that statement was the affirmation that the spirit
is alive, comprehending, hearing, and seeing during its life in the barzakh, and that in
such state it communicates with other spirits of the dead and of the living.
The Arabic term used by Makhlûf is rûḥ and not nafs. Considering that Makhlûf is very familiar with
technical terms, and knows that in Islamic spiritualist manuals these capacities have been often mentioned
for nafs, it is not clear if since he is speaking to a general public, he is purposely using the “popular” term
of rûḥ instead of the “technical” term of nafs, or he makes this choice because although being rare, in a few
scholarly Muslim texts, these capacities have been referred to rûḥ. To avoid this confusion, in many
occasions Smith wisely uses the combination of “soul/spirit” as a translation for any of the terms rûḥ and
nafs. See Smith, “Concourse between the Living and the Dead in Islamic Eschatological Literature,” 226,
235.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
216
some point, will have to argue its credibility based on the Qur’ân.
3.3 Death in the Qur’ân and the Question of mawt and tawaffâ
Death is an important Qur’ânic concept and, as mentioned before, it has been carefully
discussed by both Muslim and Western scholars of the Qur’ân.128
Many Muslim scholars
have written a whole chapter and/or book on this subject.129
While mufassirûn have
discussed its linguistic and exegetical aspects, mutakallimûn have shown interest in its
theological applications and, last but not least, fuqahâ have tried to define death, so they
can decide about its undeniable implications in Muslims’ everyday life.130
Based on their
128 In her article entitled Interaction between This World and the Afterworld in Early Islamic Tradition,
Lea Kinberg lists some major classical Muslim works on death. She writes:
From among these books [books on death] we should mention at-Tadhkirah fî aḥwâl al-
mawtâ wa-umûr al- âkhirah, by al-Qurṭubi (d. 671/1273); K. ar-Rûḥ, by Ibn Qayyim al-
Jawziyyah (d. 751/1350); Sharḥ as-ṣudûr fî Sharḥ ḥâl al-mawtâ wa-l-qubûr, and its
abridged version, Bushrâ l-kâ‘b bi-liqâ’ al- ḥabîb, both by Jalâl ad-Dîn as-Suyûṭî (d.
911/1505), ad-Durar al- ḥisân fî l-ba‘th wa-na‘îm al-jinân, attributed to as-Suyûṭî, and a
similar version by the name Daqâ’iq al-akhbâr fî dhikr al-jannah wa- n-nâr, attributed to
‘Abd ar-Raḥîm b. Aḥmad al-Qâḍî. (For a similar version of the text, see John Macdonald,
Islamic Studies 3 [1964], pp. 285-308, 485-519; 4[1965], pp. 53-102, 137-179; 5[1966],
pp. 129-197, 331-383). ad-Durrah al-fâkhirah fî kashf ‘ulûm al-âkhirah, and the relevant
chapters in Iḥyâ’ ‘ulûm ad-dîn, both by Abû Ḥâmid al-Ghazzâlî (d. 505/1111) and the
equivalent chapters to Iḥyâ’ in Itḥâf as-sâddah al-muttaqîn bi-Sharḥ asrâr iḥyâ’ ‘ulûm
ad-dîn, by Murtaḍâ az-Zabîdî (d. 1205/1791)…
See Lea Kinberg, “Interaction between This World and the Afterworld in Early Islamic Tradition.” Oriens,
vol. 29/30 (1986): 285-308 (p. 286, n5).
129
For example al-Ghazâlî ends his major work Iḥyâ’ ‘Ulûm al-Dîn with a chapter entitled Kitâb Dhikr al-
Mawt wa mâ Ba‘duhû (the book on remembrance of death and what comes after it) or Ibn abi al-Dunyâ
(823-894H) has a whole book on death entitled Kitâb al-Mawt wa-Kitâb al-Qubûr (the book of death and
the book of graves.” See Abu Ḥâmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ghazâlî, Iḥyâ’ ‘Ulûm al-Dîn. Cairo: al-
Maktabat al-Tijâriyyah al-Kubrâ. No date, available online at http://www.ghazali.org/site/ihya.htm
(consulted on Aug. 6th
2012). Also see Ibn abi al-Dunyâ, Kitâb al-Mawt wa-Kitâb al-Qubûr. Edited by
Leah Kinberg. Haifa: University of Haifa, 1983. Kinberg believes:
[Ibn abi al-Dunyâ’s] works actually paved the road in the development of eschatological
literature in Islam … To the best of our knowledge knowledge, Ibn Abi ad-Dunya is one
of the earliest authors in Islamic litera ture, if not the first one, to dedicate entire treatises
to different subjects of death, life after death and the Resurrection Day… Ibn Abi ad-
Dunya was one of those who preserved the early material about the Afterworld, material
which was used later on as a basis for further development of the subject.
See Lea Kinberg, “Interaction between This World and the Afterworld in Early Islamic Tradition.” Oriens,
vol. 29/30 (1986): 285-308 (pp. 288-9).
130
It is not insignificant to mention that among mufassirûn, Qurṭubî shows a particular interest in the
question of death. His book entitled Tadhkira fî Aḥwâl al-Mawt wa Umûr al-Âkhira (a reminder of the
circumstances of death and the affairs of the afterlife) is an important reference for many classical Sunnî
scholars. See Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Anṣârî al-Qurṭubî, Tadhkira fî Aḥwâl al-Mawt wa Umûr al-Âkhira.
Cairo: Maṭba‘at al-Halabî, 1400H.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
217
interest in one or some of the above-mentioned areas, Western scholars have carefully
followed and studied these discussions.131
Although Jane Idleman Smith has done, by far,
the most meticulous study on death in Islam, the first Western scholar who worked on
this subject is Thomas O’Shaughnessy in a book first published in 1969 entitled
Muhammad’s Thoughts on Death: A Thematic Study of the Qur’anic Data.
O’Shaughnessy divides the Qur’ânic perception/image of death into four main categories:
1) death as a state of being for the land; 2) death as a mortal aspect of disbelief; 3) death
as an end for human’s life in this world; and 4) death as an evildoers’ punishment in the
afterlife.132
In all four categories, he exclusively studies the Qur’ânic term mawt.
Considering that the Qur’ân refers to death with two different terms, mawt and tawaffâ,
O’Shaughnessy’s categorization of death remains incomplete and requires further
exploration.133
Unlike O’Shaughnessy, Smith makes a clear distinction between mawt
and tawaffâ. She goes even further and suggests something that has not been discussed by
mufassirûn. She argues that mawt and tawaffâ reveal two different stages of death, the
first being experienced by rûḥ, and the second being experienced by nafs. She writes:
According to this verse [39:42] God takes the souls at death, and those that
do not die he takes during their sleep. The Arabic here says yatawaffa al-
anfus, literally, “He takes to Himself the souls,” which suggests
specifically (1) that the Arabic tuwuffiya, which is normally understood as
synonymous with mâta, to die, in this case refers to the act by which God
takes unto himself both the living and the dead for a period of time; and
131 For an example of a Western scholar who has been interested in the question of death in tafâsîr see the
book of Idleman Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad mentioned in footnote number 71 of this chapter. For
an example of a Western scholar who has been interested in theological aspects of death in the Qur’ân see
Jose Carlos Castaneda Reyes, “De la Muerte y las Muertes en el Mundo Islamico: Algunas Reflexiones
Sobre la Muerte de Muḥammad, el Profeta.” Estudios de Asia y Africa, vol. 44, No. 3 (140) (Sep.-Dec.
2009): 491-525. For an example of a Western scholar who has studied the legal aspects of death in the
Qur’ân see Ebrahim Moosa, “Languages of Change in Islamic Law: Redefining Death in Modernity.”
Islamic Studies, vol. 38, No. 3 (Autumn 1999): 305-342.
132
See Thomas O’Shaughnessy, Muhammad’s Thoughts on Death: A Thematic Study of the Qur’anic
Data. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1969.
133
A popular Arabic term to refer to death is wafât. Although derived from the same roots as tawaffâ, the
term wafât cannot be found either in the Qur’ân, or in the ḥadîth. But the popularity of the term is so much
that sometime even both Muslim and Western scholars use it in their articles as a reference to death. For
example, in his article on muwâfât, Etan Kohlberg ignores tawaffâ and instead uses wafât as the technical
term referring to “death.” Later, Kohlberg shifts between his earlier choice and al-mawt as the technical
reference to death. See Etan Kohlberg, “Muwâfât Doctrines in Muslim Theology.” Studia Islamica, No. 57
(1983): 47-66 (pp. 48 and 63).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
218
(2) that it is the souls (anfus) and not the spirits (arwâḥ) that are taken. The
first point needs only to be noted here; seldom in the commentaries on this
verse does one find a specific discussion of the distinction between the two
terms generally used to refer to the death process.134
Through a content analysis approach, another objective of this thesis is to explore Smith’s
argument further through more analysis of the links between these two Qur’ânic
references to death and the two concepts of rûḥ and nafs.135
3.3.1 mawt and Its Definitions
mawt is the gerund of the first verbal form derived from m, w, t.136
It appears 165 times in
the Qur’ân under its different verbal and non-verbal forms.137
Jawharî (the author of Al-
Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha) defines al-mawt as ḍid al-ḥayât (the opposite of life).138
Ibn Fâris (the
author of Maqâyîs al-Lugha) follows Jawharî, and does not add any more explanations.139
Before defining the term mawt, Ibn Manẓûr cites al-Azhari (the author of al-Tahdhîb)
who cites Layth b. Sa‘d al-Fahmî (d. 94H) who says: “al-mawt [the death] is a creature
among God’s creatures.”140
Ibn Manẓûr does not add any explanation to this statement.
He then follows Jawharî and defines mawt as the opposite of life. His short definition is
interspersed with many jâhilî and Qur’ânic examples of other forms of the term. Later, he
134 Jane I. Smith, “Concourse between the Living and the Dead in Islamic Eschatological Literature,” 225.
135
Muslim thinkers’ attitude of considering the two terms of tawaffâ and mawt as references to the same
phenomenon of death is so strong that right after suggesting her interpretation of 39:42, Smith immediately
mentions in the footnote:
This is not to suggest that mâta and tuwuffiya are never equated in the exegesis of this
verse. Al-Zamakhshari, for example, parallels tawfiyah with imâta as meaning
deprivation of the perceptive, sensory life … This underlines the commonality of the
situation of the soul during sleep and death, the distinction apparently lying in the
question of duration.
See ibid.
136
Mâta is a “weak verb” (fi‘l al-mu‘tal) having the vowel of w (wâw) as the middle letter of its three
lettered root radical. So it is a “hallow verb” (fi‘l al-mujawwaf).
137
It appears 39 times under its first form (verb mâta); 21 times under its fourth form (verb amâta); three
times as the noun mamât; 50 times as the noun mawt; three times as the noun mawtat; five times as the
nominal mayt; 38 times as the nominal mayyit; and six times as the nominal maytat.
138
See Al-Jawharî, Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha, under mâta, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=1140&cat=16 (consulted on June 20th
2012).
139
See Abu al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Fâris, Mu‘jam Maqâyîs al-Lugha, under mâta, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3144 (consulted on June 20th
2012).
140
See Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under mâta, available online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp
(consulted on June 20th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
219
comes back to the term mawt and defines it as “quiescence” (al-sukûn). This time, he
gives plenty of examples for how mawt presents a sense of calm and quiescence for
whatever moves. To Ibn Manẓûr, al-mawât (deads) refers to “whatever does not have
rûḥ,”141
and al-mawtân (with no rûḥ) is the opposite of al-ḥaywân (lit. animal) that he
defines as dhî rûḥ (possessing rûḥ).142
Ibn Manẓûr considers that there are two conditions
for the happening of mawt: first, the decline of movement (zawâl al-harakat), and
second, “the decadence of the faculty of intellect” (zawâl al-quwwa al-‘aqîla).143
He
states that it has been said that “nawm [sleep] is the light mawt, and mawt is the heavy
nawm,”144
but he does not agree with it and clarifies that because human temporarily
experiences the two above-mentioned conditions of mawt, the term can be allegorically
used to refer to sleep.145
This suggests that for Ibn Manẓûr, the separation between the
body and the rûḥ is the main distinctive element in the definition of mawt.146
Within his
short definitions of mawt, Fayrûzâbâdî presents a confusing combination of Ibn Manẓûr’s
detailed definitions. Fayrûzâbâdî writes: “dead is the opposite of alive, and to die means
to calm (sakana), to sleep (nâma), or to be tested by a misfortune (baliya).”147
While not
giving any explanation about his choice of this strange latter meaning, he subdivides
“dead” into three categories and writes: “dead is what [is not alive] such as a [dead] crow,
141 He mentions that al-mawât can also be allegorically used to refer to “an [abandoned] peace of earth [or
land].” See ibid.
142
He supports this latter choice of definition by giving five allegorical examples of fire, temperature,
wind, water, and wine. To him, this sense of quiescence is so dominant that the term mawt can be
allegorically used for whatever moves, alive or non-alive (fire’s flames move, temperature changes, wind
blows, water flows, and wine boils). See ibid.
143
Ibid.
144
Ibid.
145
Unlike Ibn Manẓûr some erudites put an emphasis on this categorization of death into light and heavy,
and use it to build an argument on the trueness of the day of judgment. For example Ibn Qayyim considers
nawm as the best proof for the existence of the hereafter where souls will meet their creator. To read a brief
analysis of Ibn Qayyim’s argument see Jane I. Smith, “Concourse between the Living and the Dead in
Islamic Eschatological Literature,” 224-236. 146
See Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under mâta, available online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp
(consulted on June 20th
2012).
147
Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb al-Fayrûzâbâdî, Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ. 3rd
ed. Cairo: al-Hiy’at al-Miṣriyyah al-
‘Âmmah li al-Kitâb, 1979, under mâta, available online at http://archive.org/details/211208 (consulted on
June 20th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
220
or what does not have rûḥ [in its nature] such as a cloud or what does not have a
proprietor such as [an abandoned peace of] earth [or land].”148
3.3.2 tawaffâ and Its Definitions
Tawaffâ is the gerund of the fifth verbal form derived from w, f, y (wifâ’ is the gerund of
its first verbal form).149
Unlike mawt, it appears only 25 times in the Qur,ân.150
Other
verbal and non-verbal forms of wafaya are found 41 times in the Qur’ân. Arab linguists
and mufassirûn unanimously define them as “to render” or “to pay in full.”151
But this
fifth verbal form of wafaya has a meaning different from all other forms of the verb.
Jawharî defines al-wafât as al-mawt, and briefly mentions: “tawaffâhu Allâh [means
God] captured his rûḥ.”152
Ibn Fâris defines tawaffâ as “to capture something in full, in a
way that nothing remains.”153
Then he writes: “That is why it has been said for the dead,
tawaffâhu Allâh.”154
Fayrûzâbâdî follows Jawharî’s short definition and explanation word
by word, and does not add anything to it. Unlike the three of them, Ibn Manẓûr’s
definition of tawaffâ is detailed and long, supported by many examples from both the
jâhilî poetry and the Qur’ân. Ibn Manẓûr first mentions that al-wafât means al-mawt.
Then he writes:
148 In this sentence, Fayrûzâbâdî uses the plural form of dead (al-mawât), but a word by word translation
will not make sense. That is why I translate it as singular. See Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb al-Fayrûzâbâdî, Al-
Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ. 3rd
ed. Cairo: al-Hiy’at al-Miṣriyyah al-‘Âmmah li al-Kitâb, 1979, under mâta, available
online at http://archive.org/details/211208 (consulted on June 20th
2012).
149
This is a rare case where the verb is a “weak verb” having the of vowel of wâw (w) as the first letter,
and the vowel of yâ’ (y) as the last letter of its three lettered root radical, so it is both an assimilated verb
(fi‘l al-mithâl) and a defective verb (fi‘l al-nâqiṣ).
150
It appears 24 times under the fifth form (verb tawaffâ), and once as the fifth form active participle
(mutawaffî). These appearances are in the following âyahs: 2:234, 240; 3:55, 193; 4:15, 97; 5:117; 6:60, 61;
7:37, 126; 8:50; 10:46, 104; 12:101; 13:40; 16:11, 28, 32, 70; 22:5; 39:42; 40:67, 77; 47:27.
151
It appears 18 times under its second form (verb waffa); 18 times under its fourth form (verb awfâ);
once under its tenth form (verb yastawfu); twice as the nominal awfâ); once under the second form of its
active participle (muwaffû); and once under the fourth form of its active participle (mûfûn). For the meaning
of wafaya in some of these forms see, for example, the translations or the tafâsîr of 2:181; 3:25; 16:111; or
39:70.
152
See Al-Jawharî, Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha, under wafaya, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=1140&cat=16 (consulted on June 20th
2012).
153
Ibn Fâris, Mu‘jam maqâyîs al-Lugha, under wafaya, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3144 (consulted on June 20th
2012).
154
Ibid.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
221
Tuwuffiya [the passive tense of tawaffâ] someone and tawaffâhu Allâh
maens [God] captured his nafs, [although] in Ṣiḥâḥ [al-Jawharî says] when
[God] captured his rûḥ. Some have said that tawaffâ is [used for] the dead
because one [dies] when the time that [God has decided] for him is fully
paid to him, and he receives all [his] days, months and years in this life…
but [also] tawaffî of the sleeper means the time that one has to use his
intellect and [the power of] distinction is fully paid [to him] until the
moment that he falls asleep.155
Ibn Manẓûr’s definition of tawaffâ suggests that somewhat this fifth verbal form of
wafaya shares the same sense of “to pay in full” with all other verbal forms of its radical
root. More importantly, although Ibn Manẓûr does not clarify why he does not agree with
other linguists on considering rûḥ as the object of tawaffâ, the juxtaposition of his earlier
definition of mawt as the nonexistence (or the separation) of rûḥ with his definition of
tawaffâ as the capture of nafs suggests that to him, although both mawt and tawaffâ mean
“to die,” the first one exclusively deals with rûḥ, and the latter solely takes care of nafs.
This conviction is what Smith briefly explains, and this thesis seeks to explore some of its
implications in the Qur’ânic image of death.
3.3.3 The Qur’ânic Image of Death through mawt
As mentioned before, mawt is the Qur’ân`s usual term for death. Its verbal and non-
verbal appearances can be mostly found in the sûrahs 2 to 10 of the Qur’ân (69 times)
with the exception of sûrah 8 (al-Tawbah) in which mawt appears only once.156
Adding
to those appearances the following other occurances in sûrah 23 (6 times), sûrah 30 (8
times), and sûrah 39 (5 times), one can conclude that more than half of its appearances
are in eleven precise sûrahs. The rest are scattered mostly over the first fifty sûrahs of the
Qur’ân.157
Knowing that fourteen out of twenty-five appearances of tawaffâ are also in
sûrahs 2 to 10, one might suggest that the issue of death is more of a Medinan topic than
155 See Ibn Manẓûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, under wafaya, available online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp
(consulted on June 20th 2012).
156
It appears 21 times in sûrah 2, 16 times in sûrah 3, 6 times in sûrah 4, 4 times in sûrah 5, 10 times in
sûrah 6, 4 times in sûrah 7, once in sûrah 8, 4 times in sûrah 9, and 3 times in sûrah 10.
157
Under one of its forms, Mawt appears only 13 times in the sixty four last sûrahs of the Qur’ân. Here is
a list of these appearances: twice in sûrah 53, twice in sûrah 56, twice in sûrah 57, twice in sûrah 62, once
in sûrah 63, once in sûrah 67, once in sûrah 75, once in sûrah 77, once in sûrah 80, and once in sûrah 87.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
222
a Meccan one.158
This suggests that within the Meccan period of the Prophet
Muḥammad’s mission, the Qur’ân rarely discusses the concept of death. But once the
Prophet establishes his power in Medina, with the many subsequent battles against
pagans, the Qur’ân starts to define and explain the concept of death for Muslim warriors
in particular. The Qur’ânic juxtapositions of mawt with qatl (killing/murder) in the same
âyahs support the above-mentioned hypothesis. In fact, one of the major points of
distinction between mawt and tawaffâ is a kind of nature that killing/murder exclusively
shares with mawt and not with tawaffâ.
3.3.3.1 mawt and qatl
On five occasions, the Qur’ân presents mawt and qatl as alternatives to each other, four
of which are in sûrah 3 (Âl ’Imrân).159
Mufassirûn are unanimous that these âyahs are
revealed immediately after the second military encounter between Muslims and Quraysh
pagans in a valley named Uhud. One year after Quraysh pagans had been defeated by
Muslims in the battle of Badr (17th
Ramadan 2H/March 13th
624C.E.), they prepared a
bigger army and marched towards Medina to avenge their shameful losses at Badr.
According to al-‘aṣabiyyah (the jâhilî tribal law), any conflict/battle should be followed
by either a conflict resolution council where the elders of the allied tribes decide about
ransoms and/or punishments for the guilty tribe, or a battle in which all allied clans and
tribes take part and participate.160
In the case of the battle of Badr, accepting the
arbitration of any conflict resolution council would have naturally meant that pagans
recognize the Muslims as a new power and/or tribe in the Najd Peninsula. To avoid this
situation, they chose the second option and prepared themselves for a follow-up battle
that eventually took place on the 19th
day of March 625. This battle of the Quraysh
pagans with their allied tribes against Muslims was fought in the mountainous outskirts
of Medina called Uhud. As the battle unfolded and started to look like a second victory
for Muslims, a group of Muslim fighters left their assigned posts, rushing to spoil the
158 As a matter of fact, with five exceptions being in sûrahs 67, 75, 77, 80, and 87, the concept of death
under any of its two terms is almost absent in the fifty last sûrahs of the Qur’ân.
159
In 3:144, 156-8; 22:58.
160
For a study of al-‘aṣabiyyah laws see I. M. Khalifa, An Analytical Study of ‘Aṣabiyah: Ibn Khaldun’s
Theory of Social Conflict. Doc. Thesis. Washington, Catholic University of America. 1972.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
223
pagans’ camp. This hole in the Muslims’ defence system allowed a wing of the Quraysh
army to attack Muslims from behind. Many Muslims were killed and the battle ended
with the victory of the Quraysh army. Among those who were killed was the uncle of the
Prophet, Ḥamzah b. ‘Abd al-Muṭallib, a great supporter of the Prophet and a pillar of the
Muslim army. Quraysh pagans victoriously marched back to Mecca, and Muslims
returned to Medina in shock and grief.161
In this context, the following âyahs 3:156-8
were revealed:
ربوا ى ٱلر خوتنهم إا فروا وقالوا ل ٱلذين أيا ٱلذين ءاموا ل تكونوا ـو ى يز انوا ض أو
ى قوب حسرة تل ٱلل دنا ما ماتوا وما قتوا ليجع انوا يحىۦ ويميت م لو بما وٱلل وٱلل
م ورحمة خير م ن ٱلل م أو متم لمغفرة ٱلل بي تم ى
ن قت ولتم أو تعمون بصير ن م ا يجمعون ول
تحشرون لى ٱلل تم ل قت
O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their
brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they
had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed … And
what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from
Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be
slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?
The primary goal of these âyahs is neither to define, nor to explain death, but to comfort
Muslims and re-solidify their trust in God’s rewards in the afterlife. The Qur’ân preaches
them to see death as the beginning of a better life rather than the end of life on earth,
teaching them an important point: being killed and dying share the same nature: in both
cases, as soon as it happens, there will not be any return. The only possible return will be
on the day of judgment. The emphasis on this impossibility of returning from mawt and
qatl is emphasized in the juxtaposition of ḍarabu fil-arḍ (went far into the land) with
kânu ghuzzâ (were fighting). It also is reflected in the conditional blaming sentence
towards pagans who see “no death” (mâ mâtû) in the passage “If they had been (here)
with us.” In other words, according to the text, pagans see life in “staying” and no
return/death in going to fight. Although believing in the eternal life in the afterlife, this
“no return” aspect of mawt can also be found in different other Qur’ânic contexts. For
161 Despite debates on its authenticity, one of the most popular works on the Prophet’s battles is Al-
maghâzî of al-Wâqidî. For a study of his work see Rizwi S. Faizer, “The Issue of Authenticity regarding the
Traditions of al-Wâqidî as Established in His Kitâb al-Maghâzî.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 58,
No. 2 (1999): 97-106.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
224
example, in 2:132 both prophets Abraham and Jacob, while being at the point of death,
anxiously warn their sons not to die but to surrender to the will of God (as muslims). One
can find the reason of their concern in âyah 217 of the same sûrah. Part of it reads:
“…And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose
works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the
Fire: they will abide therein.” So both Abraham and Jacob voice their concern about this
no return aspect of mawt asking their sons to be careful with their one chance of living on
earth. According to the Qur’ân, the jâhilî rejection of human’s resurrection is exclusively
about the resurrection of the body. This no return bodily aspect of mawt in jâhilî thought
is precisely addressed in many âyahs where the Qur’ân, in direct citations from Jâhilîs,
narrates their hesitation and/or rejection of any possible bodily return after a dead body is
turned to dust.162
For example, 50:3 reads:
ذ جبوا أن جاءهم م اب ا تراب جيب أءا متا و ذا شىء ـو فرون ه ـو هم قال ٱلك رجع ر م تل
بعيد
Nay, but they marvel that a warner of their own hath come unto them; and
the disbelievers say: This is a strange thing: When we are dead and have
become dust (shall we be brought back again)? That would be a far return!
This point reveals a second aspect of mawt in the Qur’ân: its natural consequence or the
decomposition of the body to the point of turning to dust.
3.3.3.2 mawt and the Question of Decomposition
In most Qur’ânic direct citations from Jâhilîs on death, the idea of mawt has been
immediately followed by the natural decomposition of the human body and its
transformation into “dust and bones” 163
Dust is the element at both ends of human life
being there before birth and after death. The only difference is that at the first end (birth),
162 For example in 11:7; 23:35, 37, 82; 37:16, 53; 45:24; 50:3; 56:47.
163
The Qur’ân cites Jahîlîs who say: “When we are dead and have become (mere) dust and bones, shall
we then, forsooth, be raised again?” With some minor changes, this formula appears 5 times in 23:35, 82;
37:16, 53; 56:47. In 17:49, 98 the Qur’ân cites the same sentence from Jahîlîs with a different term for dust
(rufât instaed of turâb). While Pickthall translates rufât as “fragments,” Yusuf Ali translates it as “dust,”
and Ahmed Ali translates it as “bits.” A more accurate translation for rufât would be “scattered dust.”
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
225
it is presented under its wet form, salsâl or tîn (clay), and at the other end (death), it is
presented under its dry form, dust.164
Another important common element in both creation and death is “bones.” In
almost every Qur’ânic direct citation from Jâhilîs on mawt, bones are present right after
dust. On a few occasions, death is even presented as “to become bones,” without any
mention of dust.165
This dominant presence of bones in the jâhilî image of death has been
approved by the Qur’ânic arguments regarding the creation and resurrection of human
beings.166
The only example of “bones” being a phase in the process of creation can be
found in 23:14. 23:12-4 read:
كين ثم خق ى قرار مه نطفة ـو ن طين ثم جع م
ة ـو ن من ـو نس ولقد خقا ٱلقة ا ٱلطفة
ا ثم م لحم ـو ا كسونا ٱلعظ م ـو ظ قا ٱلمضغة قا ٱلعقة مضغة قا ءاخر ه خ ـو أنشأن ٱلل تبار
قين ـو أحسن ٱل
Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a
drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then
fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump
bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another
creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!
But the examples of “bones” in the Qur’ânic process of resurrection are more numerous.
For example, at the end of sûrah 2 (al-Baqarah), within the story of prophet Ezra, the
Qur’ân gives an example of the resurrection of the bones. According to the Qur’ân, Ezra
passes by the ruins of a village, and asks God how He will resurrect all those scattered
dust and bones. He then miraculously falls asleep for one hundred years and when he
164 For human’s creation from “salsâl” (potter’s clay) see 15:26, 8, 33; 55:14; and for human’s creation
from “tîn” (clay) see 6:2; 7:12; 17:61; 23:12; 32:7; 37:11; 38:71, 6.
165
For example 79:10-11 read: “(Now) they [pagans] are saying: Shall we really be restored to our first
state even after we are crumbled bones?” Or 36:78 reads: “And he [man] hath coined for Us a similitude,
and hath forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted
away?”
166
A par excellence example can be read in the beginning âyahs of sûrah 75 (al-Qyâmah) where with an
authoritative tone, the Qur’ân reacts to the above-mentioned jâhilî doubt about the resurrection of bones.
75:1-4 read:
Nay, I swear by the Day of Resurrection; Nay, I swear by the accusing soul (that this Scripture is
true). Thinketh man that We shall not assemble his bones? Yea, verily Yea. We are Able to restore
his very fingers!
A more accurate translation for what Pickthall translates as “fingers” (banânahu) would be “the thin bones
of [all] his fingers.”
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
226
wakes up, he sees the bones of his dead donkey and witnesses their resurrection from
death. 2:259 reads:
ىو قرية وهى خاوية ٱلذى مر بعد موتهاأو ذه ٱلل ـو روشها قال أنىو يحىۦ ه مائة ىو أماته ٱلل
ام ثم بعه ت ۥ ا أو بعض يوم قال ڪم لب ت يوم
قال لب ام ٱنظر إلىو طعام ت مائة قال ب لب
لم يتسه اس وشراب ل ءاية ولجع نشزها ثم وٱنظر إلىو حمار وٱنظر إلى ٱلعظام ڪي
ا ا تبين له نكسوها لحم شىء قدير م ىو ڪ م أن ٱلل ۥ قال أ
Or (bethink thee of) the like of him who, passing by a township which had
fallen into utter ruin, exclaimed: How shall Allah give this township life
after its death? And Allah made him die a hundred years, then brought him
back to life. He said: How long hast thou tarried? (The man) said: I have
tarried a day or part of a day. (He) said: Nay, but thou hast tarried for a
hundred years. Just look at thy food and drink which have not rotted! Look
at thine ass! And, that We may make thee a token unto mankind, look at
the bones, how We adjust them and then cover them with flesh! And when
(the matter) became clear unto him, he said: I know now that Allah is Able
to do all things.167
This image of mawt as “to become bones,” and that of the resurrection as “bones
recovered by flesh” is vividly present in the Qur’ânic frequent and allegorical use of the
term mawt for the earth. On several occasions, the Qur’ân talks about the “revival” of the
earth after its death by sending water from the sky, and asks believers to think about this
natural phenomenon and see it as a “sign” for the trueness of their own resurrection from
death.168
In this allegorical comparison, one can easily see some major similarities
between bones and dead earth such as dryness, hardness, and immobility, as well as some
common characteristics between the flesh and live nature (plants, trees, flowers, etc.),
such as moisture, softness, and mobility. Also in both cases the live part gives life to the
dead part by covering it.
All the above-mentioned explanations support the hypothesis that, to the Qur’ân,
there is a direct link between mawt and the human body. In other words, mawt is and/or
causes the death and the decomposition of the body. This bodily aspect of mawt and its
connection to earth can be abundantly seen in different other Qur’ânic contexts. Here are
three examples: first, part of 31:34 reads “… no soul knoweth in what land [earth] it will
die.” Here the Qur’ân makes a connection between “the earth” (arḍ) on which humans
167 More examples can be read in 36:78 and 79:11.
168
In 2:164; 16:65; 29:63; 30:19, 24, 50; 35:9; 39:42; 45:5; 57:17.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
227
live and “the death” (mawt) that happens to those who live and move on earth. The
second example is in 7:25: “He [God] said: There shall ye [humans] live, and there shall
ye die, and thence [from the earth] shall ye be brought forth.” What Pickthall translates as
“there” is in fact “therein” (fihâ), and by using “in earth” as opposed to “on eath,” the
Qur’ân makes a clear statement about the fact that in order to survive, human needs the
resources of the earth whether mineral, vegetal or animal. This “in” before anything
reflects the human’s bodily composition as made out of the elements of the earth, and its
needs being dependant on the earth’s resources. Thus mawt represents the transformation
of body into the earth and its unification with its original source. The third example is in
80:21: Then [God] causeth him [human] to die, and burieth him [in earth by ordering
others to do so to him].” Here, it seems that, to the Qur’ân, the burial of the body in the
earth is an inevitable consequence of mawt. So, as soon as mawt happens, the body needs
to go back to earth.
3.3.3.3 mawt and the Question of Subject
Since mâta (the first verbal form of mawt) is an intransitive verb, its passive form does
not exist in Arabic. Despite this intransitive character of mâta, the Qur’ân conjugates it in
a way that the verb accepts a direct object. In all those cases, the object of the verb is
human (i.e. in 2:28; 22:66; 30:40; 45:26). Also, in all those instances of a transitive object
after the use of mâta, the subject of the verb is Allâh. In the Qur’ân, Allâh does not share
with anyone this power of taking human life. This aspect, on the one hand, confirms the
sanctity of human life as one of the most basic concepts in Islam;169
on the other hand, it
demonstrates a special relationship between God and human beings: a relationship where
life is exclusively given and taken by God. The fact that Allâh (the noun or its subjective
pronoun) is the only subject mentioned in the Qur’ân for the verb ahyâ (the fourth form
of hayaya meaning “to give life”) confirms the above-mentioned conviction.170
So ḥayât
169 A quick glance at any book of kalâm or fiqh reveals that the most precious thing in God’s creation is
the human’s life. Also see among others, the tafâsîr of 4:29 and 6:151.
170
This transitive form of hayaya appears 51 times in the Qur’ân. In 47 times of its appearances Allâh
(noun or pronoun) is the subject of the verb. The exceptions can be found once in 2:258, once in 3:49, and
twice in 5:32. In 2:258 the Qur’ân cites Abraham’s argument with a king who claims to give life by freeing
a person who is sentenced to death. So the king is the false subject of the verb. In 3:49 the Qur’ân cites
Jesus who announces: “I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah’s
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
228
(life) is the exclusive property of God, and in this regard the death of mawt is honoured
by the same divine exclusiveness.
3.3.4 The Qur’ânic Image of Death through tawaffâ
The Qur’ânic image of death through tawaffâ is quite different from that of mawt. In this
image, qatl is totally absent. Instead, one can find the juxtaposition of tawaffâ with nawm
(sleep). On two occasions (6:60 and 39:42), the Qur’ân describes sleep as a repeated
tawaffâ bil layl (nightly death). In 6:60, this fatal nature of nightly sleep has been
emphasized by describing the awakening of every morning as a repeated yab’athukum fih
(daily resurrection). It reads:
م أج ار ثم يبعڪم يه ليقضىو ويعم ما جرحتم بٱل ڪم بٱلي و ىوهو ٱلذى يتو ثم إليه سم
تم تعمون مرجعكم ثم يب ئكم بما
He it is Who gathereth you at night and knoweth that which ye commit by
day. Then He raiseth you again to life therein, that the term appointed (for
you) may be accomplished. And afterward unto Him is your return. Then
He will proclaim unto you what ye used to do.171
Being allegorical or not, this comparison necessarily rejects any damage to or
decomposition of the body through tawaffâ. On the contrary, here tawaffâ pictures the
human body entering a state of rest and regain of its energy.172
In 39:42, while the Qur’ân
leave.” Here Jesus presents Allâh as the real power behind the act of giving life, so He is the real subject of
the verb. 5:32 talks about the value of saving human’s life, and mufassirûn are unanimous on the allegorical
nature of the âyah. Part of it reads:
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being
for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all
mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all
mankind …
171
In this âyah, Pickthall translates yatawaffâkum as “gathereth you.” He is not persistent in his translation
of the same Qur’ânic expression in other âyahs. In 4:15, he translates yatawaffâhunna as “take them,” in
8:50 he translates yatawaffahum as “receive themn” and in 10:104 and 16:70 he translates yatawaffâkum
yatawaffâkum as “causeth you to die.” However, in 6:60, while Yusuf Ali translates yatawaffâkum bil layl
as “takes your souls by night,” Ahmed Ali’s translation of this expression is probably the clearest one: he
translates it as “sends you to death at night.”
172
This characteristic of sleep has been emphasized in several âyahs. For example 10:67 reads: “He it is
Who hath appointed for you the night that ye should rest therein and the day giving sight. Lo! herein verily
are portents for a folk that heed.” Also see 6:96; 27:86; 28:72-3; 40:61.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
229
repeats its description of sleep as death, it makes a clear distinction between death
through tawaffâ and death through mawt. It reads:
يتوى ٱلنفس حين موتها وٱلتى لم تمت ى مامها ٱلل وير يا ٱلمو ٱلتى قضىو يمس
ى ٱلخرىو سم م أج ت ل قوم يتفكرون إلىو ـو لي إن ى تل
Allah receiveth [tawaffâ] (men’s) souls at the time of their death [mawt],
and that (soul) which dieth [mawt] not (yet) in its sleep. He keepeth that
(soul) for which He hath ordained death [mawt] and dismisseth the rest till
an appointed term. Lo! herein verily are portents for people who take
thought.173
This âyah’s juxtaposition of images of death through mawt and tawaffâ provides a certain
chronological and hierarchical order. 174
According to this âyah, tawaffâ reveals a
primary stage of death with the possibility of a return, and mawt is a final stage of death
that, as explained before, has no possibility of return. Also, if the two stages of death
happen together (dying while sleeping), tawaffâ comes first and mawt comes after it. The
âyah stresses the “round trip” nature of tawaffâ by the statement yursil al-ukhrâ (lit.
sends others back). Again, among our three translators of the Qur’ân, Pickthall’s
translation is the least clear. While translating yursilu al-ukhrâ in this âyah as “[He]
dismisseth the rest,” Pickthall does not respect his own choice of the English equivalent
for yursilu in some other Qur’ânic appearances of the same term such as in 7:57 (He
sendeth), 11:52 (He will cause), and in 13:13 (He launcheth). Yusuf Ali translates yursilu
al-ukhrâ in 39:42 as “the rest He sends (to their bodies).” Finally Ahmed Ali has the
closest translation to the meaning of the term as discussed by mufassirûn. He translates it
as “[He] sends the others back.”175
39:42 is clear in its purpose to say that those who are
kept in their sleep will enter the final stage of death, and those who are sent back will live
until ajalin musammâ (an appointed term). This latter term has been used in both a
general sense (i.e. in 2:235 for the time that a widow has to wait before she can remarry;
in 2:282 for loans; in 35:13 for the cycles of the son and the moon; or in 65:4 for the
length of women’s pregnancy), and in a particular sense for one’s time of living in this
173 In this âyah, Pickthall’s translation of yatawaffâ al-anfus suffers from the same inconsistency
explained in previous footnote.
174
As mentioned before, Smith studies mufassirûn’s discussions on this âyah and suggests a distinction
between mawt and tawaffâ. See Smith and Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection.
175
For mufassirûn the emphasis is on “back.”
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
230
life. In all its appearances as a predestined time for living, if the âyah includes a reference
to death, the term used is exclusively mawt.176
This suggests that according to the Qur’ân,
when one reaches his/her “appointed time,” what he/she experiences is not tawaffâ but
mawt with no more chance to return to life. For example 3:145 reads:
ل ج ا م ب ـو ت إل بإن ٱلل ا ومن يرد وما ڪان لفس أن تمو تهۦ م نيا ن ٱلد ومن يرد ثوا ثوا
ا تهۦ م كرين ٱلخرة ن ـو جزى ٱلش و
No soul can ever die [mawt] except by Allah’s leave and at a term
appointed. Whoso desireth the reward of the world, We bestow on him
thereof; and whoso desireth the reward of the Hereafter, We bestow on
him thereof. We shall reward the thankful.
Here also the ending sentence of the âyah talking about “the reward of the Hereafter”
announces to believers that any possible return from mawt will only happen in the
afterlife.177
3.3.4.1 tawaffâ and the Question of Subject
Unlike mawt and its verbal forms, tawaffâ is a transitive verb. Thus, from the very
beginning, translating it as “to die” is problematic. To respect this transitive nature of the
verb, some translators have sometimes translated it as “to cause to die.”But as shown
before, they are not consistent in their choice of an English equivalent for it. Tawaffâ
appears in the Qur’ân in both its active and passive forms, and in all cases a human being
is the object of the verb (subject in the passive tense).178
What distinguishes tawaffâ from
176 In 4:77 the term used is qatl.
177
Mufassirûn are unanimous that this âyah has been revealed in the context of the battle of Uhud. When
a wing of the Quraysh army attacked Muslims from behind, someone shouted loudly qutila Muḥammad
(Muḥammad got killed). Some mufassirûn narrate a ḥadîth according to which it was the voice of Satan.
However, being scared of losing their head of army, some Muslims lost their courage and interest in the
battle. But some others resisted and turned the close decisive victory of the enemy into a relative one.
Mufassirûn are also unanimous that with an inclusivist approach, the âyah gives the example of the death
(mawt) of the Prophet to stress the no exceptional nature of “the appointed term.” To them, “Whoso
desireth the reward of the world” refers to those Muslim warriors who participate in the battles for their
plunders, and “whoso desireth the reward of the Hereafter” refers to those warriors who participate in the
battles to obey God’s orderbelievers’ choice of reward after mawt. Al-Râzî is among those who discuss this
subject matter in detail. See Al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 3:145, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on Aug. 21st 2012).
178
For example in 4:97, 5:117, and 6:61 it appears in one of its verbal active forms and in 2:234, 240, and
2:5 it appears in one of its verbal passive forms.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
231
mawt is that, unlike mawt, the readers of the Qur’ân find a variety of subjects for the
active forms of tawaffâ, and Allâh is not the exclusive doer of the act of causing death.
The following quotes provide examples of different subjects of tawaffâ in the Qur’ân:
Allâh as the subject of tawaffâ
ـو ول بد ٱلذين تعبدون من دون ٱلل ن ديى ل أ م تم ى ش أيا ٱلاس إن ـو ي ٱلذى ق بد ٱلل كن أ
كم ي و مين تو ون من ٱلم أن أ وأمر
Say (O Muḥammad): O mankind! If ye are in doubt of my religion, then
(know that) I worship not those whom ye worship instead of Allah, but I
worship Allah Who causeth you to die, and I have been commanded to be
of the believers. (10:104)
Angels as the subject of tawaffâ
تم م قالوا يم كة ظالمى أنفس ـو هم ٱلم و ذين توا مستضعفين ى ٱلرض إن ٱل قالوا ألم تكن قالوا
تاجروا ياأرض ٱللعة هم جهم وت و مأو ـو ا أول مصير اء و
Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong
themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say:
We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not Allah’s
earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their
habitation will be hell, an evil journey’s end. (4:97)
God’s messengers as the subject of tawaffâ
ت ن ٱ تهۦ من أظم مم ـو بـ ايذ ذبا أو ى ٱلل ب رىو ـو ن ٱلكت يالهم نصيبم م ـو إا جاءتم أول حتىو
ون من دون ٱلل تم تد ا يتوونم قالوا أين ما ر وا انوا قالوا م م أن أنفس ىو دوا ا وش
فرين ـو
Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah or
denieth Our tokens. (For such) their appointed portion of the Book (of
destiny) reacheth them till, when Our messengers come to gather them,
they say: Where (now) is that to which ye cried beside Allah? They say:
They have departed from us. And they testify against themselves that they
were disbelievers. (7:37)
Here some mufassirûn such as Ibn Kathîr and al-Ṭûsî mention that “Our messengers”
refers to angels, so it must be categorized under the previous category, but some others
such as Ṭabarî and Ṭabâṭabâ’î believe that it refers to a specific angel: the Angel of death
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
232
(malak al-mawt), so it must be categorized under the next category.179
The options of all
other mufassirûn fall under either one of these two categories.
The Angel of death as the subject of tawaffâ
بكم ثم إلىو رب كم ترجعون ٱلذى و ٱلمو كم م و يتو ق
Say: The angel of death, who hath charge concerning you, will gather you,
and afterward unto your Lord ye will be returned. (32:11)
What is interesting here is that the term used for “death” in “the angel of death” is mawt
and not tawaffâ. In other words the angel of mawt has the mission of performing the act
of tawaffâ. The act of mawt as mentioned before is exclusively in the hands of God. One
might say that this âyah was also complete without the extra explanation of alladhî
wukkila bikum (lit. who has been put in charge of you), but its appearance after the
subject suggests that, like in the case of Jesus giving life with God’s leave, here the angel
of death is in charge of taking life with God’s permission, so the real subject remains God
himself.
mawt as the Subject of tawaffâ
ڪم م يهن أربعة دوا تش ڪم ٱ حشة من ن سا ـو تى يأتين ٱلف ـو
وٱل دوا أمسكوهن ى ٱلبيو إن ش
بيل لهن ٱلل أو يجع هن ٱلمو و حتىو يتو
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four
(reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify,
confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them
some (other) way. (4:15)180
This passage marks probably the most confusing appearance of tawaffâ in the Qur’ân.
Here mawt itself is the subject of tawaffâ. This is the only Qur’ânic case where the object
of tawaffâ is limited to a gender as well as to a specific group (adulterer women). I
179 Ṭabarî interprets “Our messengers” as malak al-mawt wa junûduhu (the Angel of death and his army),
and Ṭabâṭabâ’î considers it to be malak al-mawt wa a‘wânuhu (the Angel of death and his helpers). See Al-
Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 7:37, available online at www.almeshkat.net (consulted
on Aug. 21st 2012). Also see Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 7:37, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Aug. 21st 2012).
180
It is not surprising to see that in the five âyahs presented in this small section, Pickthall uses 5 different
equivalents for the term tawaffâ. In this regard, other translations are not much different.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
233
checked several classical tafâsîr, and most mufassirûn do not seem to be preoccupied
with the fact that here mawt is the subject of tawaffâ. Most of them feel that it is
sufficient to say: “yatawaffahunna al-mawt means they die.”181
Even Suyûṭî who is
before anything, a great grammarian of the Arabic language does not pay attention to this
unusual usage of the term. Among the many that I checked, Zamakhsharî is the first
mufassir who rightly notices the confusing usage of mawt in 4:15, but he simplifies the
situation and writes:
So if you ask: Knowing that al-mawt and al-tawaffâ mean the same thing,
what does it mean [to say] yatawaffahunna al-mawt? Is it like being said:
the death [al-mawt] makes them die [yamituhunna]? I [will] say: it is
possible that it [al-mawt here] means the angels of mawt as His saying:
those who are caused to death by angels, in al-Nahl 38 [16:38], or [His
saying:] Say, the angel of death causes you to death, in al-Sajda 11
[32:11]. Or [it might mean] until al-mawt captures them and receives
[yastawfi] their souls.182
Only a few mufassirûn pay attention to this explanation by Zamakhsharî and most others
totally ignore it. Râzî expands on Zamakhsharî’s explanation and writes:
[One might ask] the question [of]: Knowing that al-mawt and al-tawaffâ
maen same thing, what does it mean [to say] yatawaffahunna al-mawt? Is
it an allegorical way of saying that the death [al-mawt] makes them die
[yamituhunna]? The answer is that it is possible that it [al-mawt here]
means the angels of mawt as His saying: those who are caused to death by
angels, in al-Nahl 38 [16:38], or [His saying:] Say, the angel of death
causes you to death, in al-Sajda 11 [32:11]. Or [it means] until al-mawt
captures them and receives their souls.183
Those few mufassirûn who follow Râzî commonly ignore the question and mention either
the first part of the answer (i.e. Khâzin (d. 741H)) or the whole answer (i.e. Nasafî) as the
definitive interpretation of mawt in 4:15.
181 I checked the tafâsîr of Ibn Sulaymân, Ṭabarânî, Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî, Qurṭubî, Ibn Jawzî, Baghawî,
wâḥidî, Mâwardî, Ibn Kathîr, Râzî, Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib, Hawârî, Mâturîdî, Nasafî, Gharnâṭî, Samarqandî,
Makhzûmî, Qushayrî, Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, Khâzin, A‘qam, Fayrûzâbâdî, Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Ṭûsî, Fayḍ al-Kâshânî,
Suyûṭî, Shûkânî, ‘Aṭfîsh, and Jazâ’irî.
182
Al-Zamakhsharî, Tafsîr al-Kashshâf, under 4:15, available online at
http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194 (consulted on Aug. 22nd
2012).
183
Al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 4:15, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on Aug. 22nd
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
234
Going back to Zamakhsharî’s explanation, he clearly states that the question
comes from the fact that mawt and tawaffâ mean the same thing, so to him, it does not
sound logical to attach them together in a sentence. However, as discussed before,
considering that mawt and tawaffâ are not the same human experience, and that despite
sharing some common elements in their respective natures, they have some major
differences, the question remains: How mawt, as a no return and final stage of death, can
cause someone to experience tawaffâ in which a return is always possible? As mentioned
before, classical tafâsîr are not preoccupied with this problem, but some recent
mufassirûn see a grammatical problem in the usage of mawt here. While trying to solve
this intriguing problem, they unintentionally suggest an answer to our hermeneutical
question. Shahâb al-Dîn al-Alûsî (1217-1270H) is probably the first one who sees the
grammatical problem when he writes:
[Here] tawaffâ has been used in its original meaning which is to pay back
and it [necessarily] is the reception [of what has been paid]. [For example]
it can be said: I paid my money to someone and I [can only say: I] made
him pay back after I have received it [from him]. [Here] the reference [of
the âyah] to mawt is because of its comparison to someone who does such
an act [the act of receiving]. So here, there is an allegorical allusion and
the saying [has been formed] by the deletion of the added term [in the
construct state]. [So] the meaning [of the sentence] is: until mawt receives
their arwâḥ [rûḥ in plural], and it is not permissible to believe that [here]
tawaffâ has been used in its popular sense [of death], and that the sentence
runs like: until mawt makes them die, and it [the sentence] does not make
any sense except if [we accept that] the added term is hidden but the verb
refers to it [which is] the angels of mawt, or [we accept that] the reference
is allegorical and [mawt] is the real subject of an act [hidden here but]
referred to by the mention of the result of the act [which is receiving].184
In simple words, Alûsî tries to say that interpreting the subject of the verb to mean here
“the angel(s) of mawt” might be an option. But, a better option would be to interpret the
verb and understand it in the original meaning of its roots. So to Alûsî, here tawaffâ does
not mean “death” or “to make die,” but it replaces its fifth verbal form (used once in the
Qur’ân in 83:2) that allegorically means “to receive.” If this interpretation is correct, the
184 Maḥmûd Shahâb al-Dîn al-Alûsî, Rûḥ al-Ma‘ânî fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-‘Aẓîm wa al-Sab‘ al-Mathânî.
16 vols. Edited by ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Bârî ‘Aṭiyyah. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, no date, under 4:15, available online at
www.altafsir.com (consulted on Aug. 22nd
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
235
sentence would thus mean: “until mawt receives their arwâḥ, and it does not talk about
death through tawaffâ.”185
Although this possibility has been mentioned by Zamakhsharî
in his tafsîr on the concerned âyah, and some other mufassirûn have followed him by
including it in their tafâsîr, none of them presents Alûsî’s argument and/or side with
Alûsî’s preference to the options of “mawt makes them die,” or “the angel(s) of death
cause(s) them to die.” This point, of course, is based on the fact that to them mawt and
tawaffâ reveal the same experience, and the whole sentence talks about that same
experience of death. No one can claim with certainty if this issue has been ignored for
fourteen centuries and that Alûsî is the first mufassir who presents this argument, but
even if he is not the first one, the argument has been ignored by the vast majority of
mufassirûn before him. Alûsî’s suggestion for the interpretation of tawaffâ solves also the
hermeneutical problem that this thesis is concerned about. In other words, with Alûsî’s
suggestion, mawt remains in the hands of God, and more importantly, the experience of
the final death through mawt remains distinguishable from the experience of the
returnable death through tawaffâ.
3.3.4.2 tawaffâ and the Question of Body
In the Qur’ân, the no return nature of mawt as well as its direct and immediate physical
consequence as the decomposition of the human body present a clear picture of a total
separation between a human being and all his/her faculties in the course of experiencing
mawt. So any “post-mawt” life must be understood and/or believed in a non-bodily and
non-material form until the Day of Resurrection. This however is not the case for tawaffâ.
On different occasions, the Qur’ân narrates conversations between human and angels,
and in one case mentions the physical punishment of wrong doers by angels during the
process of tawaffâ. 16:32 is an example of a pleasant conversation between angels and
those who are passing through tawaffâ:
كة طي بين ـو هم ٱلم و ي ٱلذين تتو م ـو تم تعمون يقولون كم ٱدخوا ٱلجة بما
185 I checked Sayyid Qutb (d. 1387H), Ibn ‘Âshûr (d. 1393H), Shanqîṭî, Sha‘râwî (d. 1418H), Ṭanṭâwî,
and Ṭabâṭabâ’î. Surprisingly Ibn ‘Âshûr is the only one who mentions Alûsî’s explanations. Ibn ‘Âshûr
goes further and to support Alûsî’s interpretation, provides some jâhîlî poetries.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
236
Those whom the angels cause to die (when they are) good. They say:
Peace be unto you! Enter the Garden because of what ye used to do.
Although the âyah does not mention the reaction of good doers, it stands to reason that
they hear angels and react to their invitation. But believing in this conversation, and
accepting the Qur’ân’s definition of nawm as the repeated experience of tawaffâ, one
might wonder why Muslims do not have in hand tons of collections of reports from pious
people who have experienced some of these conversations while being asleep. For the
same reason, we may ask why there is no report from nonbelievers who, after going
through one of these experiences of tawaffâ, have repented or at least reported such
conversations. 7:37-9 clearly show the severity of the experience:
تهۦ ـو بـ ايذ ذبا أو ى ٱلل ترىو ن ٱ ب من أظم مم ـو ن ٱلكت يالهم نصيبم م ـو أول حتىو
ون من دون ٱلل تم تد ا يتوونم قالوا أين ما م إا جاءتم ر أنفس ىو دوا ا وش وا قالوا
ن فرين قال ٱدخوا ى أمم قد خت من قبڪم م ـو انوا م نس ى ٱلار أن ٱلجن وٱلة ما دخت أم
ونا ـ ات لعت أختا لء أ ـو ا ه هم رب و هم لول و ا قالت أخر ارڪوا يا جميع إا ٱد ا حتىو ذاب م
ن ٱلار ا م عف قال ل يا من ض ان لكم هم ما و هم لخر و كن ل تعمون وقالت أول ـو ول ع ك
تم تكسبون بما ذوقوا ٱلعذا
Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah or
denieth Our tokens. (For such) their appointed portion of the Book (of
destiny) reacheth them till, when Our messengers come to gather them,
they say: Where (now) is that to which ye cried beside Allah? They say:
They have departed from us. And they testify against themselves that they
were disbelievers. He saith: Enter into the Fire among nations of the jinn
and humankind who passed away before you. Every time a nation entereth,
it curseth its sister (nation) till, when they have all been made to follow
one another thither, the last of them saith unto the first of them: Our Lord!
These led us astray, so give them double torment of the Fire. He saith: For
each one there is double (torment), but ye know not. (38) And the first of
them saith unto the last of them: Ye were no whit better than us, so taste
the doom for what ye used to earn.” (7:38-9).
The âyahs 8:50-1 go further and, as mentioned before, reveal physical punishment of
wrong doers through tawaffâ:
إ يتوى ٱلذين ڪفروا ولو ترىو ٱلحري تل ذا رهم ووقوا ـو كة يضربون وجوههم وأدب ـو ٱلم
عبيد م ل ـو ليس بظ بما قدمت أيديڪم وأن ٱلل
If thou couldst see how the angels receive those who disbelieve, smiting
their faces and their backs and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning!
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
237
This is for that which your own hands have sent before (to the Judgment),
and (know) that Allah is not a tyrant to His slaves.
If this is the same tawaffâ that the Qur’ân mentions for nawm, how can we interpret the
absence of physical evidences/scars on the body of at least some wrong doers after they
wake up from sleep? Also while sleep has a very individual nature, why in all Qur’ânic
citations of conversations happening during tawaffâ, angels always talk to a group of
people and not to individuals? Lastly, why all negative conversations start with qâlû
(angels said) in the past tense and the positive conversation starts with yaqûlûn (angels
will say) in present/future tense?186
One wonders how come none of these questions has been asked or answered by
either classical or modern mufassirûn. This silence is surprising, and can only be
explained by what remains an unsatisfactory answer: mufassirûn are unanimous that all
these conversations happen at everyone’s moment of death, but the deceasing person,
whether right doer or wrong doer, is not capable of returning and informing others about
this now-unveiled-truth. In a few cases, mufassirûn mention the âyah’s occasion of
revelation (asbab al-nuzûl), and by doing so, they refer this experience of interaction with
angels to a precise group of people. For example, most of them mention that 8:50 has
been revealed about pagans who were killed in the battle of Badr. But this does not
change their conviction about this mystical interaction with angels that every human
being has to experience at the moment of death.
I suggest that from the very beginning, we must avoid understanding and
translating tawaffâ as “death,” “to die,” or “to cause to die.” An equivalent such as “to
expire” might be closer to the Qur’ânic experience of tawaffâ. This repeated expiration is
a different experience than death. It happens every night, as well as one last time right
before the moment of mawt. What makes this last experience of tawaffâ non-returnable is
not in its own nature, but in its combination with mawt. To me, all the above-mentioned
âyahs and all other âyahs where we have a conversation and/or interaction between
humans and angels in the context of tawaffâ reveal an experience of tawaffâ on the day of
judgment and not at the moment of death in this life. This would explain why neither
right nor wrong doers experience it in their nightly tawaffâ. Consequently, any memory
186 For negative conversations see 4:97; 7:37; 8:50; 16:28 and for positive conversation see 16:32.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
238
about it or any physical scar caused by it, would be out of question. This suggestion
solves the problem of why in all of its instances, angels talk to and/or hit people in groups
and not individually. The presence of heaven or hell in all instances of those interactions,
and the mention of the result of people’s deeds, always in the past tense, which is the
Qur’ân’s rhetorical style to cite conversations in the afterlife, support my suggestion.187
Accepting that this last tawaffâ will happen in the afterlife helps better understanding
40:11. In fact, because 40:11 explicitly reveals the possibility of a second death, it has
been the subject of much confusion and debates among mufassirûn. It reads:
ا ٱثتين وأحي ا أمت قالوا رب بي ن إلىو خرو م ا بذنوبا ه تر يتا ٱثتين ٱ
They [wrong doers, on the day of judgment] say: Our Lord! Twice hast
Thou made us die, and twice hast Thou made us live. Now we confess our
sins. Is there any way to go out?188
Here many mufassirûn discuss four possibilities:189
1) the âyah talks about life in this
world, then death in this world, then resurrection and life in the tomb, the death in the
tomb, then a final resurrection on the day of judgment; 2) the âyah talks about life in the
ethereal world (‘âlam al-dhar), then death in that world, then life in this world, then death
in this world, then resurrection on the day of judgment; 3) the âyah talks about life
coming from Adam’s backside, when God made all humans testify to themselves that
God is their Lord (mentioned in 7:172), then death, then life in this world, then death in
this world, then resurrection on the day of judgment; 4) the âyah talks about a state of
death in the womb before rûḥ is blown to the fetus’ body, the life in the womb after rûḥ is
blown to the fetus until the end of one’s life in this world, then death in this world, then
resurrection on the day of judgment.190
Ṭabarî mentions all these four possibilities,
187 For some examples of past tense being the Qur’ân’s rhetorical style when citing conversations in the
afterlife see 7:44-50; 39:72-4; 41:20-3. In this last example, the Qur’ân talks about the Day of Judgment in
present tense (41:19), but as soon as it starts citing a conversation between wrong doers and their own body
members on the same day, it makes a sudden shift to the past tense. However, most translators translate
verbs in 41:20-3 as if they were in future tense.
188
This is another example for a conversation in the day of judgment in past tense. Pickthall does not
respect the past tense nature of the verb qâlû (they said), and translates it as: “they say.”
189
Some such as Ibn ‘Arabî and Sayyid Qutb keep silence about it and present only the literal meaning.
190
Zamakhsharî strongly refuses any of these possibilities and argues that this âyah is an example of a
Qur’ânic rhetorical style according to which two times repetition of an act is a way of showing its
importance. Ṭabâṭabâ’î mentions this as a possibility but does not prefer it. See Al-Zamakhsharî, Tafsîr al-
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
239
without choosing between them. While a few mufassirûn such as Ṭabarânî and Qurṭubî
follow Ṭabarî in not mentioning their preference, many others such as Râzî, Fayrûzâbâdî,
Ibn Kathîr, Qushayrî, Ṭûsî, Kâshânî, and Ṭabâṭabâ’î prefer the first possibility.191
Râzî
goes further and carefully answers those who have criticized the first possibility.192
He
mentions that some have said that this possibility necessarily requires believing in three
lives, the third one being the eternal life after the resurrection on the day of judgment.193
He argues that here wrong doers do not count their life on earth, because compared to the
length and the sufferings of their two lives in the tomb and on the day of judgment, their
earthly life is not worthy of mention.194
To him, that is why the direct citation in the âyah
starts with the mention of two deaths and not two lives, because the chronology of events
begins with the first death at the end of the earthly life. He concludes that accepting the
fact that the death in the tomb is the first event will necessarily mean that the first life
worthy of being mentioned is the one in the tomb. Then, there must be a second death in
the tomb followed by the second life which is the resurrection on the day of judgment.195
None of those who prefer the first possibility discuss the bodily aspects of this second
death, or clarify how it happens if a deceased person is not buried and/or does not have a
body.196
However, this second death is another argument that supports fmy suggested
interpretation of the final tawaffâ on the day of judgment. The possibility of the above-
Kashshâf, under 40:11, available online at http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194 (consulted
on Sep. 7th
2012).
191
This possibility has been first mentioned by the great muḥâddith Ismâ‘îl b. ‘Abd al-Raḥmân b. abi
Karîma al-Suddî (d. 129H).
192
Despite Râzî’s efforts, some later mufassirûn such as al-Tha‘labî (d. 875H) mention those critics and
refuse the concerned possibility.
193
Ṭabâṭabâ’î follows Râzî in this argument, but most others do not mention it. See Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-
Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 40:11, available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted
on Sep. 7th
2012).
194
He also refuses the fourth possibility arguing that starting by death in the womb necessarily requires a
life before that state of death, because death is the end of life, and takes its meaning from life, but not vice
versa. He also mentions that some have said that in this âyah, wrong doers are lying, but he rejects this
interpretation and argues that God would have reacted to their lie as He does so in 6:23-4.
195 See Al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 40:11, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on Sep. 7th
2012).
196
In fact, Qurṭubî briefly mentions that life and death in the tomb make sense only if they can have
implications on the deceased body dwelling in the tomb. While mentioning this important problem, he
neither refuses nor accepts the first possibility. See Al-Qurṭubî, Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm al-Qur’ân, under 40:11,
available online at http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/20855n (consulted on Sep. 10th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
240
mentioned second death being on the day of judgment, and not in the tomb, has been
discussed within the tafâsîr of 40:16 (5 âyahs after 40:11). Those who have preferred the
second death being in the tomb refuse it, and those who have refused the death in the
tomb consider it as a possible interpretation of the concerned âyah.197
3.4 mawt, tawaffâ, and the Theory of Humans’ Tripartite Nature
As suggested by Jane I. Smith, tawaffâ, at least in sleep, refers to a separation between
body and nafs, and rûḥ is not involved in its process. As Smith mentions it, this theory
has been briefly suggested and discussed by a few mufassirûn, as an attempt to interpret
39:42 through a disctinction between nafs and rûḥ.198
To complete this theory, I suggest
that according to the Qur’ân, a human being is composed of three distinctive elements:
jasad (body), nafs (soul) and rûḥ (spirit).199
Spirit gives life to body and keeps it alive. It
also enables nafs to join the body and makes them together a live entity. As soon as spirit
is blown into the fetus’ body, it becomes a livable vehicle for nafs, so nafs comes and
dwells in the body, and uses it to produce thoughts, feelings and actions. The Qur’ân is
neither clear about the source of nafs, nor gives information about where it comes from.
197 For example, while Râzî refuses to mention the source of this interpretation and simply mentions
“some have said” that there will be a common death for all beings and creatures on the day of judgment; he
dedicates pages to disprove it. He concludes that this conversation is between God and all human beings
after everybody has been resurrected, so the question is asked by God, and the answer is given by the
humanity. On the contrary, Qurṭubî briefly mentions this latter possibility, but prefers the possibility of the
common death of all creatures on the day of judgment. While he considers it to be al-ẓâhir (more evident),
he mentions its source as Ḥasan al-Baṣrî. Mufassirûn do not seem to agree on the source of this
interpretation. For example while Qurṭubî and Tha‘labî mention Ḥasan, Ibn Kathîr considers him to be Ibn
‘Umar (d. 73H), and Mâwardî mentions Muḥammad b. Ka‘b al-Qaraḍî (40-120H). Also, there is an explicit
mention of a common death in ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib’s sermon number 186, but it is not clear if that death will
happen at the end of time and before the resurrection or after it. See Sayyid al-Sharîf al-Raḍî ed., Nahj al-
Balâghah. 49th
ed. Translated into Persian by Mohammad Dashtî. Qum: Amir al-Mo’menîn Publication,
2010 (p. 260).
198
Smith and Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection, 19.
199
In her article entitled Spirits and Selves in Northern Sudan, J. Boddy studies the cultural therapeutics in
Hofriati, a village in Northern Sudan. She mentions that those “Villagers stipulate that all humans are
composed of three vital essences: rûḥ, or breath, identified as the soul; nafs, or animal life-force, including
lusts, desires, and emotions; and ’aqel, or reason, rationality, the ability to control one’s emotions and
behave in socially appropriate ways.” This tripartite composition of human being can be found under
different forms in many other Muslim cultures and subcultures around the world, but they often are
“popular ideas” rather than anthropological theories with theological or philosophical backbones. See
Janice Boddy, “Spirits and Selves in Northern Sudan: The Cultural Therapeutics of Possession and
Trance.” American Ethnologist, vol. 15, No. 1, Medical Anthropology (Feb. 1988): 4-27 (p. 5).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
241
Also our understanding of the Qur’ân do not clarify if in a certain moment of human
creation, nafs descends and meets the body or if nafs is developed throughout the process
of creation within the formation and growth of the body.
Down the centuries, fuqahâ have discussed the approximate time when a fetus
becomes a human being. They have mostly paid attention to the legal aspects of this issue
such as its implications on abortion, heritage, and blood money. In their discussions, the
process through which the fetus becomes human is referred to with the technical term of
“al-wulûj” (the entering). They unanimously describe wulûj as the entering of the rûḥ into
the fetus’ body. They are silent about the question of whether or not the nafs is also
engaged in this process. Knowing that fuqahâ’s first source of information is the Qur’ân
and its tafâsîr, a quick glance at tafâsîr reveals that the above-mentioned silence comes
from mufassirûn who totally ignore nafs and its potential role in the process of making a
human being out of a fetus. After examining several tafâsîr, I could not find any mention
of nafs as an element of wulûj.200
Even those who discuss in detail the distinctions
between nafs and rûḥ, and consider them as two different elements, are not concerned
with when nafs joins rûḥ or jasad.
What I therefore suggest is that, according to the Qur’ân, rûḥ gives life to the
body and constantly fuels its vital subconscious and involuntary processes. Ṭabâṭabâ’î
considers this “life giving” function of the rûḥ as the common point between all different
interpretations and contradictory definitions of the term presented by mufassirûn. In his
tafsîr on 16:2, he writes:
despite people’s intense disagreements in the past and in the present on the
truth about rûḥ, they do not disagree on the fact that they all understand
one meaning from rûḥ, which is what life comes from, [the life] which is
the source of intelligence and determination, and that is what this glorious
âyah refers to.201
200 The Qur’ânic âyah that most explicitly addresses and discusses this issue is 23:14. I checked the tafâsîr
of Ibn Sulaymân, Ṭabarânî, Ṭabarî, Zamakhsharî, Qurṭubî, Ibn Jawzî, Baghawî, wâḥidî, Mâwardî, Ibn
Kathîr, Râzî, Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib, Hawârî, Mâturîdî, Nasafî, Gharnâṭî, Samarqandî, Makhzûmî, Qushayrî,
Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, Khâzin, A‘qam, Fayrûzâbâdî, Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Ṭûsî, Fayḍ al-Kâshânî, Suyûṭî, Shûkânî, ‘Aṭfîsh,
and Jazâ’irî.
201
Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 16:2, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Sep. 11th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
242
I conclude that the first part of Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s definition of rûḥ comes from the Qur’ân, but
the second part of his definition - considering rûḥ as the source of intelligence and
determination - comes from several mufassirûn’s historical and existing confusion
between rûḥ and nafs. In other words, I suggest that rûḥ is the divine and unique source
of life shared with every creature.202
It gives life to the body and keeps it alive by
constantly stimulating its physical subconscious and involuntary processes. The natural
consequences of the presence of rûḥ in the body are physical growth as well as bodily
feelings such as pain and carnal needs such as hunger. In this regard, human beings are
not that different from any other living creature, including animals. If everything stops at
this stage, humans will only have the capacity of behaving instinctively based on their
inherent inclinations. But somewhere along the road, which is not clear to me when, nafs
enters the scene, takes control over the live body, and uses it to produce reflections,
emotions and actions. These unique products of nafs are what makes a human being
distinguishable from any animal. Jane I Smith states that this separating function of nafs
has been mentioned by a mufassir called al-Khaṭîb, who in his tafsîr on 39:42 cncludes:
(1) rûḥ gives life; man and animals have spirits and the difference between
them, as between the spirits of men, is in rank and not in kind; (2) the nafs
distinguishes man from animal, the human essence [al-dhât al-insânîya]
being created by the meeting of the rûḥ and the body.203
From Smith’s indirect citation, it emerges that this mufassir is confusing interchange
between the terms nafs and rûḥ. In fact, while “(1)” presents the nafs as the distinctive
element between human and animal, “(2)” clearly suggest that “the human essence”
comes from “the meeting of the rûḥ and the body.” After carrying out a prosopographical
research to verify the works of several mufassirûn who had “al-Khaṭîb” in their names or
kunya, I found the classification that Smith mentions in the above page of her book as
belonging to the tafsîr of Shams al-Dîn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Khaṭîb al-Sharbînî (d.
202 To help my readership better understand my suggestion, I compare rûḥ with a small cloud coming out
of a big cloud at the moment of one’s creation, and rejoining the big cloud later at the moment of that
person’s death. Giving or receiving, the big cloud remains always one cloud.
203
Smith, “The Understanding of Nafs and Rûḥ in Contemporary Muslim Considerations of the Nature of
Sleep and Death,” 201-2.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
243
977H).204
As Smith rightly mentions it, he is among those mufassirûn who believe in a
distinction between nafs al-‘aql wal-tamyîz (Smith’s translates it as: “the soul possessing
the rational faculties of intelligence and discrimination”) and nafs al-ḥayât wal-ḥaraka
(Smith translates it as: “the soul possessing life and movement”), but this latter attribute
of “life and movement” to nafs clearly reveals that to them, despite being distinguishable
from nafs, rûḥ is a subcategory of nafs, and not an independent element of human
nature.205
Going back to the initial problem of the emergence of nafs in human beings, I did
not find enough evidence to suggest, one way or another, whether, according to the
Qur’ân, the nafs is developed/created throughout the development of the fetus from
within, or if it descends and joins the already existing composition of rûḥ and jasad at a
certain moment. Also, if the latter is the case, existing tafâsîr do not help us understand
when exactly nafs meets the live body of the fetus for the first time.
What seems clear to me is that the Qur’ânic concept of nafs benefits from two
major characteristics that rûḥ is deprived of. First, like the human body, nafs is on a
constant path of growth, evolution, and change. But rûḥ is fix and unchangeable. Many
mufassirûn consider rûḥ as a ḥaqîqah wâḥidah (single truth) with different levels. Those
mufassirûn who consider nafs as a subcategory of rûḥ use the concept of marâtib al-rûḥ
(levels of rûḥ) to solve the contradiction of a changeable entity (nafs) as a part of an
unchangeable entity (rûḥ). The confusion between nafs and rûḥ among mufassirûn is
widespread to the extent that even those who believe in an independent existence of nafs
also attribute the improvement of human faculties to rûḥ. For example, in his tafsîr on
16:2, Râzî mentions four levels for rûḥ: the level of five senses, the level of reasoning
and intelligence, the level of knowledge including “the knowledge about God, His acts
and attributes, the knowledge of things in the world[s] of spirits [arwâḥ] and bodies
204 Smith mentions her reference as “al-Khaṭîb (Tafsîr [1967-70], XII, 1160-67). Neither Sharbînî nor any
other al-Khaṭîb is mentioned in her bibliography.
205
I carefully read Sharbînî’s tafsîr on 39:42, but I could not find any mention of nafs as a distinctive
element between human and animal. Smith does not give more information about the source of her
statement. There are two possibilities: whether the mufassir in question is not Sharbînî or it is him, but
Smith cites him from his tafsîr on an âyah other than 39:42 ignored in Smith’s reference. See Shams al-Dîn
Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Khaṭîb al-Sharbînî, Sirâj al-Munîr fi al-I‘ânat ‘alâ Ba‘ḍ al-Ma‘ânî Kalâm
Rabbanâ al-Ḥakîm al-Khabîr. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2004, under 39:42, available
online at http://www.tafsir.net/vb/tafsir4864/ (consulted on Sep. 17th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
244
[ajsâd], [and the knowledge of] this world and the afterlife, and finally the level of
revelation exclusively belonging to spirits of the prophets.”206
This categorization
explicitly suggests that, to Râzî, rûḥ is the vessel of human faculties, and that any stable
and lasting positive or negative change in those faculties is the result of rûḥ’s fall or
ascension between its levels. This categorization can be found in the works of those who
mention it in either a summarized or an extended version.207
But I believe that this
categorization of rûḥ is based on two mistakes: first, the non-recognition of an
independent existence for nafs and, second, the understanding of rûḥ with its
unifunctional life giving nature as the vessel of changes in human’s capacities and
faculties.
Second, unlike rûḥ, nafs seems to join the live body in stages. Although fuqahâ
have suggested different times for wulûj, they all agree on the fact that wulûj happens at a
precise moment within the pregnancy. Some have suggested the 120th
day of the fetus’
life, some others have considered it to be the 50th
day of pregnancy, and there are other
suggestions too.208
All suggestions consider it to be a sudden event, and not the
development of rûḥ within time. This matches the Qur’ânic image of death through mawt
which is a sudden and non-returnable moment. On different occasions, the Qur’ân puts an
emphasis on the sudden nature of mawt. The followings are two examples. 31:34 reads:
ده إن ٱلل ل ٱلغيث ويعم ما ى ٱلرحام ة ويز ا م ٱلس ا ۥ د اا تڪسب وما وما تدرى نفس م
يم خبير تدرى نفس بأى أرض تمو إن ٱلل
Lo! Allah! With Him is knowledge of the Hour. He sendeth down the rain,
and knoweth that which is in the wombs. No soul knoweth what it will
earn tomorrow, and no soul knoweth in what land it will die. Lo! Allah is
Knower, Aware.
206 Al-Râzî, Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb, under 16:2, available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372 (consulted on Sep. 12th
2012).
207
For an expanded version see Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr, and for a resumed version see Alûsî’s tafsîr on the
same âyah.
208
For an example of a madhhab that suggests 120th
day see K. M. Hedayat, P. Shooshtarizadeh and M.
Raza, “Therapeutic Abortion in Islam: Contemporary Views of Muslim Shiite Scholars and Effect of
Recent Iranian Legislation.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 32, No. 11 (Nov. 2006): 652-657 (p. 653). For
an example of a madhhab that considers it to happen on the 50th
day see S. Aksoy, “Making Regulations
and Drawing up Legislation in Islamic Countries under Conditions of Uncertainty, with Special Reference
to Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 31, No. 7 (July 2005): 399-403 (p.
401).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
245
In an indirect but unmistakable way, the âyah warns that mawt happens faster than one
can run away from it or can choose his/her place of death. The mention of “which is in
the womb” might also suggest that the starting point of life as as quick as its end.
A second example is the death of Solomon. Mufassirûn have narrated different
stories about Solomon’s supernatural powers and abilities including his power of
controlling winds and his ability of talking to animals and plants. But when mawt comes
to him, it does not give him enough time to seat or lay down. So Solomon dies while
standing and leaning on his cane, and djinns who work for him do not notice his death
until termites eat his cane and he falls. 34:14 reads:
مسأته ىو موتهۦ إل دابة ٱلرض تأڪ ما دلهم يه ٱلمو ا قضيا ت ٱلجن أن م ا خر تبي ۥ م
ٱلمهين انوا يعمون ٱلغيب ما لبوا ى ٱلعذا لو
And when We decreed death for him [Solomon], nothing showed his death
to them save a creeping creature of the earth which gnawed away his staff.
And when he fell the jinn saw clearly how, if they had known the Unseen,
they would not have continued in despised toil.
In their tafâsîr on this âyah, some mufassirûn such as Tha’labî, Zamakhsharî, Ibn
‘Aṭiyyah, and Qumî al-Nayshâbûrî (d. 728H) cite a conversation between Solomon and
the Angel of death in which the Angel of death comes to Solomon and informs him:
“Indeed I have been ordered about you, and indeed it remains of your life [not more than]
an hour.”209
Then, at the appointed moment, the Angel takes Solomon’s rûḥ.210
Again,
this image of mawt suggests a sudden and quick one step phenomenon. There are plenty
of aḥâdîth that support this image. Most of them warn believers about the sudden coming
of death, and encourage them to take action and do something for their salvation before it
is too late. In all the many aḥâdîth that I verified, the term mawt is used rather than
209 In Tha‘labî’s version the Angel ends with: “and Indeed, it remains of your life a small part of an hour.”
See Abu Muḥammad b. ‘Âshûr al-Tha‘labî, Al-Kashf wa al-Bayân. 10 vols. Beirût: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-Turâth al-
‘Arabî, 2002, under 34:14, available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3548 (consulted on
Sep. 13th
2012).
210
For example see Al-Zamakhsharî, Tafsîr al-Kashshâf, under 34:14, available online at
http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194 (consulted on Sep. 14th
2012).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
246
tawaffâ.211
This sudden aspect of death cannot be found in the Qur’ân when the Qur’ânic
reference to death is tawaffâ. Another evidence for the stage by stage aspect of tawaffâ
and the sudden aspect of mawt can be read in ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib’s detailed explanation of
what happens to nafs at the moment of death. Part of his khuṭba (sermon) number 108 is a
detailed report on what happens to wrong doers at their moment of death.212
At the
beginning of his description of death, he uses two different terms of sakrat al-mawt (the
drunkenness of mawt) and ḥasrat- al-fawt (the regret of fawt). His presentation of death
includes consecutive stages through which death enters into human beings. He writes:
[Look] how descended upon them what they were ignoring, and came to
them the separation from this world in which they were feeling themselves
so safe, and they stepped into the afterlife as they had been promised. Ah,
it is indescribable what descended upon them.
The drunkness of mawt and the regret of fawt came together and
rushed to them, so their hands and legs weakned for it [death], and their
skin colors changed upon it. Then death increased in them through wulûj,
and sat betwee one of them and his speech power [he is not able to talk
anymore]. Indeed, he is among his family members. He looks with his
eyes, listen with his ears and his mind is still working … he thinks about in
what he passed his life and in what he wasted his time. He remembers the
wealth that he gathered … others enjoy it now, and its weight is on his
shoulders … then death penetrates more in his jasad [body], and like his
mouth, his ears stop working… He is among his beloved ones … looking
at their faces and seeing their lips moving, but he does not hear them
anymore. Then death goes further in penetrating [his body], and takes his
eyes [his power of vision], as it has taken his hearing and [at this point,]
his rûḥ has gone out of his jasad, and he has become a cadaver among his
own people, [a cadaver] from whom they were scared wanting to keep
distance.213
211 In his major work “Riyâdh al-Salihîn,” the Shâfi’î erudite Abu Zakariyya Muḥyuddîn Yaḥyâ b. Sharaf
al-Nawawî (631-676H) gathers many of those aḥâdîth under a chapter called bâb al-mawt (the chapter of
death). His book is among the most published ḥadîth sources, and has been translated to more than 16
languages. For the Arabic version see Abu Zakariyya Muḥyuddîn Yaḥyâ b. Sharaf al-Nawawî, Riyâḍ al- Ṣâliḥîn min Ḥadîth Sayyid al-Mursalîn. Beirut: Dâr al-Riyân li al-Turâth, 1987. For the English version see
Imâm Muḥyuddîn Yaḥyâ al-Nawawî, Gardens of the Virtuous in the Speech of Prophet Muḥammad.
Translated into English by Muḥammad Bîḍawî. Lebanon and Kuwait: al-Maktabat al-‘Aṣriyyah, 2007. All
versions in different languages are available online at http://www.islamhouse.com/p/111275 (consulted on
Sep. 12th
2012).
212
In some editions, this sermon is numbered 108.
213
Sayyid al-Sharîf al-Raḍî ed., Nahj al-Balâghah. 49th
ed. Translated into Persian by Mohammad Dashtî.
Qom, Iran: Amir al-Mo’menîn Publication, 2010 (p. 146).
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
247
In ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib ’s description, the usage of the term wulûj is not only surrprizing, but
also important. On the one hand, it is surprizing because, as mentioned before, it is the
technical term for the arrival of rûḥ into the fetus’ body and not its departure.214
On the
other hand, it is important because: first, as soon as wulûj of death appears in the text, the
text switches from third person plural to third person singular; and second, as soon as
wulûj starts, the author temporarily shifts from his dominant past tense rhetorical style to
the present tense, and shifts back again to the past tense only after the procedure of death
is complete, and he can announce: “rûḥ has gone out of his jasad and he has become a
cadaver.” This clearly suggests that, to ‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib , death is a phenomenon
experienced individually. Also the rhetorical shift might suggest that the subject of those
verbs that describe the stages of death is something other than rûḥ.
‘Ali ibn abi Ṭâlib ’s description of death informs its reader about two different yet
intertwined phenomena happening together during the final moment of death. If this is
true, then I suggest that one of them is the stage by stage death of the bearer of human
faculties (nafs) through tawaffâ, and the other one is the separation between rûḥ and
jasad through mawt.
As explained before, the Qur’ân introduces the human being as the only creature
to whom God imparts the quality of nafs.215
Also, as explained before, the Qur’ân does
not seem to consider rûḥ as responsible for its owner’s thoughts and actions. In fact, the
term “owner” might be a wrong term to use here, because rûḥ comes from God, stays in
touch with that source of life, and once it returns to God, it rejoins its source and reunifies
with its first and only owner. A pictorial interpretation of this statement would be streams
and brooks branching out from a river. In this picture, the river is not only the initial
source of life for the brooks, but also the existence of streams and brooks depend on their
constant attachment to the river.216
Some aḥâdîth picture this attachment as the Sun and
214 A quick glance at major Arabic dictionaries probably reveals that unlike the case of birth, no linguist is
familiar with the usage of wulûj for death. I checked Lisân al-‘Arab, Maqâyîs al-Lugha, Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-
Lugha, Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ, and Al-‘Ibâb al-Zâkhir.
215
For the question of djinns having nafs or not, see footnote number 92 on page 25.
216
In Islamic Philosophy, this process of constant descent of “being” to a creature is called ifâdha al-
wujûd (the impartation of being). Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna) (980-1037C.E.) discusses in detail the concept of
ifâdha and develops a theory that explains the process of becoming a being. To read more about ifâdha see
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
248
the rays of sunlight. In a ḥadîth narrated in different sources, Imâm Ja‘far al-Ṣâdiq (83-
148H) says:
The believer is the brother of [other] believer[s, and they are] like one
single body, if one part [of the body] is hurt, this will cause pain to all
parts of the body. Indeed the rûḥ of believer is more attached to the Rûḥ of
Allâh than the rays of Sun are to the Sun.”217
Some similar aḥâdîth from the Prophet or various Shi’î Imams have been recorded in
different Shi’î or Sunnî sources.218
On the contrary, nafs by nature is not divine. As
shown before, according to the Qur’ân, nafs is responsible for its owner’s actions and
thoughts. Consequently nafs will be judged, rewarded or punished. This means that not
only reflections, comprehensions and emotions dwell in and happen by nafs, but also
above-mentioned bodily feelings and needs are perceived and controlled by nafs.219
More
importantly the perception of time is nafs’ exclusive capacity. The Qur’ân puts an
emphasis on al-khulûd or the eternal aspect of final reward and/or punishment.220
At the
same time, on different occasions, the Qur’ân informs its readers that on the day of
judgment those resurrected from the tombs will loose their sense of time, and will not
know how long they have been in their tombs.221
This image reminds us of what many of
us have experienced after a deep sleep or a coma when our senses of time and space are
confused. According to the Qur’ân, nafs leaves the body during sleep. Therefore, the
faculty of the perception of time must be in nafs.
I therefore suggest that every time the Qur’ân talks about mawt, it refers to the
non-returnable separation between rûḥ and jasad, and every time it mentions tawaffâ,
regardless of its time of happening in this world or in the afterlife, it talks about a
Abu ‘Ali al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Abdullâh ibn Sînâ, Kitâb al-Ishârât wa al-Tanbîhât. Translated and edited by
Hasan Malekshâhî. Tehran: Soroush, 1368 Solar hijra (pp. 320-1)
217
Hâdî al-Najafî, Mawsû‘at Aḥâdîth Ahl al-Bayt. 40 vols. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ Turâth al-‘Arabî, 2002 (vol.
1, p. 163).
218
According to some of those aḥâdîth, God created arwâḥ (spirits) before He created abdân (bodies).
See, for example, al-Kulaynî, Uṣûl al-Kâfî (vol. 1, p. 438), available online at
http://www.islam4u.com/maktabah_list.php?sid=3 (consulted on Sep. 11th
2012).
219
Questions such as anaesthesia are not concerns of this thesis, but they need to be addressed and
discussed by scholars and mufassirûn.
220
For some examples see 5:70, 85, 119; 6 :128; 7:20, 36, 42; 9:17, 22, 68, 72, 89, 100; 10:26-7; 11:23,
107-8; 13:5; 14:23. 221
See, for example, 2:259; 18:19; 20:104; 23:113.
CHAPTER 3. NAFS, RUḤ AND THE QUESTION OF TAWAFFÂ AND MAWT
249
separation between nafs and jasad. In this latter phenomenon, rûḥ plays the role of the
entrance gate for nafs. In other words, nafs can only dwell in the body if the body is kept
alive by the presence of rûḥ. As soon as rûḥ leaves the body, the gate is close and nafs
can neither return, nor dwell any more in the body.
If this theory is accepted, it will have direct impact on three major domains. First,
it might change our understanding of some theological issues such as the Qur’ân’s
anthropological theory, the concept of resurrection, and the notion of salvation in the
Qur’ân. Second, it will have implications on legal issues such as apostasy, euthanasia,
and abortion. Finally, it will help us better understand and interpret some Qur’ânic
narratives such as the story of ‘Uzayr, the report of the Sleepers of the Cave, and the
Qur’ânic presentation of Jesus’ last day on earth.
Chapter 4
The Crucifixion of Jesus in tafsîr and ‘ilm al- ḥadîth: An
Example for a New Hermeneutics of the Qur’ân
4.1 Introduction
The Qur’ânic narratives on Jesus’ birth, life, miracles, and death, as well as his coming at
the End of Time have been meticulously studied and carefully investigated by numerous
Muslim erudites, as well as many Western scholars. These studies range from biased
works done by Christians or Muslims converted into Christianity at one end to apologetic
works done by Muslims within the frameworks of Islamic heresiology at the other end.1
In both cases, these texts suffer from different degrees of proselytism. In between these
two opposite extremes, there are a few scholarly works done by both Muslim and
Western scholars who try to shed light on the Qur’ânic image of Jesus through careful
analysis and much more objective research.
This chapter is a humble effort in this latter direction in order to advance our
understanding of the Qur’ânic image of Jesus’ crucifixion, as an example of how some
new hermeneutical tools defined within historico-critical and intertextual approaches can
give a clearer picture of the Qur’ânic text. To do so, the chapter begins with the
1 For two examples of biased works on “Jesus in the Qur’ân,” both inviting to Christian beliefs but the
first one done by a Muslim converted into Christianity and the second one written by a Christian
missionary, see Akbar Abdiyah Abdul Haqq, Christologies in Early Christian Thought and in the Qur’ân:
Being a Critical Analysis and Comparison of Selected Christological Views in Christian Writings to 785
A.D. and Those of the Qur’ân. Ph.D. Diss. Northwestern University, 1953. Then, see Parrinder, Jesus in the
Qur’ân. For two examples of an apologetic work on Jesus’ life disproving Christian beliefs see Nasir al-
Moghmis, Christianity & Islam According to The Bible & The Quran. Riyadh: Dâr al-Salâm, 2002. Then,
see Sulaiman Shahid Mufassir, Jesus, a Prophet of Islam. Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1980.
CONCLUSION
251
justification of my choice of eight tafâsîr followed by a brief biography of their
respective authors as mufassirûn. It then quickly reviews a few narratives about Jesus’
life and his importance in Islam. This part is followed by an in-depth discussion about the
crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur’ân, and the historical implications of the popular
consensus on the denial of his crucifixion. Finally, the central question of the crucifixion
is re-examined in light of two theories: first, the theory of humans’ tripartite nature and,
second, the theory of double messages of the Qur’ân.
4.2 The Selection of tafâsîr
The tafsîr sphere is an incredibly diverse world. In the world of tafsîr, one can find
hundreds of works, providing a wide range of scientific approaches and methods
developed within different branches of knowledge from grammar and theology to physics
and astronomy. A first glance at a few works of tafsîr shows this genre of Muslim
literature to be a fascinating combination of grammatical explanations, theological
reflections, and philosophical deliberations mixed with narrative embellishments,
historical reports, and literary critics and commentaries, occasionally topped with
scientific arguments and mathematical analysis. One must add to this diverse nature of
tafsîr, the complexity and the difficult-to-understand niceties of the Arabic language that
mufassirûn usually use in the redaction of their tafâsîr. This concern of mufassirûn about
the articulation of their works of tafsîr reflects, among other things, the characteristics of
the raw material on which they work. In other words, not only most mufassirûn follow
the Qur’ânic text âyah by âyah from the beginning to its end, but they also try to imitate
and mirror in their tafâsîr the eloquence and literary beauty of the Qur’ânic text. As a
consequence, while each tafsîr might have its own quantitative and qualitative
characteristics, most of them share the same high level of sumptuous style and abstruse
rhetoric, and modern tafâsîr are no exception. So, it is not surprising to know that despite
the honest efforts of scholars and translators, no translation of tafâsîr is able to come to
grips fully with the text in its original language. This is why the eight tafâsîr that this
thesis focuses on are exclusively studied in their original language.
While I sometimes briefly mention what various mufassirûn outside the eight
selected ones have mentioned about an element in the Qur’ânic narratives on Jesus, my
CONCLUSION
252
work mainly focuses on the interpretation of the early mufassir Wahb ibn Munabbih cited
by the iconic mufassir of all time al-Ṭabarî, and six others who, in their tafâsîr of the
crucifixion of Jesus react to Ṭabarî’s choice by fully or partially citing Wahb’s narrative
through Ṭabarî or ignoring it. They are: Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib, Qurṭubî, Ibn Kathîr, Suyûṭî,
Ṭabâṭabâ’î, and Jazâ’irî. These mufassirûn can be classified into two main groups: those
who lived and produced their works of tafsîr in times and places where Muslims and
Christians cohabited in peace and enjoyed a relatively friendly relationship, and those
who lived and produced their tafâsîr in times and places where because of tensions,
conflicts or battles between Muslims and Christians, they were suffering from a tortuous
relationship. This criterion of selection reflects, among others, Alister E. McGrath’s
theory according to which one of the four interactive functions of a doctrine, as a general
phenomenon, is to work as a social demarcator for the adherents.2 McGrath’s focus is on
Christianity, but his following statement can be perfectly applied to Islam:
There is an obvious need for a religious group to define itself in relation to
other religious groups, and to the world in general. The general
phenomenon of ‘doctrine’ –although not specific doctrines– is linked with
the perceived need for social definition, especially when other factors do
not adequately define a group. An ideology which legitimates its existence
is required. Thus … doctrine arises in response to threats to religious
identity which may be occasioned socially … and temporally… Doctrine
is thus linked with the affirmation of the need for certain identity-giving
parameters for the community, providing ideological justification for its
continued existence.3
While agreeing with McGrath in general, I aim also to verify another element that might
play a role in McGrath’s theory when applied to Islam, namely, that the theologian’s (in
our case mufassir’s) link(s) to the political power and his attachment to the ruler plays an
influencing role in the construction of his tafsîr. My hypothesis is that the work of a
mufassir as a “doctrine maker,” when he is linked to the political power, might reflect the
2 McGrath is a Christian historian, and he discusses some Christian doctrines, but his theory is, to a great
extent, usable for other Abrahamic religions. In his theory, the three other functions of doctrine are:
doctrine as a generator and an interpreter of narrative; doctrine as an interpreter of experience; and doctrine
as a source of and/or a maker of true claims for its adherents. See Alister E. McGrath, The Genesis of
Doctrine: A Study in the Foundations of Doctrinal Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 (p.
37).
3 Ibid., 38.
CONCLUSION
253
political needs of the “rule makers” more than anything else.
So, for my first category of mufassirûn who lived in an era of conflict and
“official hatred” against Christians when rulers needed theological support for their
violence against Christians, I chose two exegetes with direct connections to the political
power of their time, having accepted high governmental positions. For my second
opposite category, I selected two other exegetes that were detached from such political
connections, having chosen a simple life.
In the category of those who lived to a certain degree in an era of peaceful
relationship with Christians, there are Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib and Ṭabâṭabâ’î.4 In the
category of those who lived in an era of chaotic relationship between Muslims and
Christians, there are two subcategories: those mufassirûn who were attached to power,
having governmental positions and benefitting from various privileges of being a
mouthpiece of political power, and those mufassirûn who were not attached to the
political power of their time. In the first subcategory, I selected Ibn Kathîr and Jazâ’irî. In
the second subcategory, I selected Qurṭubî and Suyûṭî.
It is important to mention that all translations into English of concerned passages
of these tafâsîr come from me, except if a tafsîr is mentioned within a direct citation from
a work in English or French. Another important issue is that as for the eight selected
tafâsîr texts, I had the choice of using either e-published versions that are freely
accessible on the Internet, or paper print versions. Instead, I ended up using both, going
back and forth between the two. Despite the exciting and astounding recent access to
online tafâsîr, I began my research studying hardbound prints of tafâsîr, as can be noticed
in several of my first chapter references. But while doing so, I found myself constantly
comparing the online versions with hardbound ones. To my surprise, I could not trace any
major differences between them, except for a few minor orthographical mistakes in the
online versions. Andrew Rippin’s overall criticism of the online tafâsîr because of such
mistakes is not a sufficient reason, in my opinion, to deny their usefulness, as scholars
working with different manuscript versions of the same tafsîr have also often had to deal
4 As mentioned before, Ṭabarî lived in the summit of what is considered by many as the Golden Era of
Islam. His philanthropist and inclucivist approach, as discussed in the first chapter, reflects his peaceful
socio-political context.
CONCLUSION
254
with such small discrepancies.5 Around the end of the first chapter, and once I was
convinced that online tafâsîr were reliable enough, while still randomly checking the
online versions with the hardbound ones, for those tafâsîr that I had found an online
accessible edition for, I decided to combine, in my footnotes, the name of the concerned
tafsîr followed by the number of the concerned ayah, with the online address of its e-
published version. One last but not least precision is that accepting an online tafsîr as a
reference in my work does not necessarily mean that I confirm the credibility of all other
online versions of the same tafsîr or that I affirm the validity of the online versions of all
other tafâsîr not used as references in my work.
I also tried to include in my selection of the eight tafâsîr a diversity of madhâhib:
Ṭabarî is jarîrî, a school that he himself founded in opposition to Ḥanbalî school. Makkî
and Qurṭubî are Mâlikî; Ibn Kathîr is Shâfi’î; Ṭabâṭabâ’î is a Twelver Shi’î; and Jazâ’irî
is Wahhâbî-Salafî, thus somewhat representative of the Ḥanbalî school.6 As for the
madhhab of Suyûṭî, it is a subject of debate: some consider him a Shâfi’î and others
believe that he was a Shi’î who lived a life of taqiyyah (hiding his true faith to save his
life). Despite their limited number, one can see that these eight selected mufassirûn
represent about fourteen centuries of tafsîr, starting with Wahb ibn Munabbih, who lived
a few decades after the Prophet’s death, all the way down to Jazâ’irî, who is still alive (as
of this date: October 2012).
4.3 Short Biographies of the Eight mufassirûn within Their Respective Historical
Contexts
4.3.1 Wahb Ibn Munabbih
Wahb b. Munabbih b. Kâmil b. Sîj abu ‘Abdullâh al-Ṣan‘ânî was a Jew born in Yemen
5 In fact, as Rippin himself mentions it, he suspects that “some of these texts have been transformed into
their electronic versions through Optical Character Recognition processes (rather than being inputted
through simple keying).” The easiest way would be to communicate with those e-publishers and ask them
about their technics of the reproduction of the texts. Scanned or keyed, the few orthographical mistakes that
I occasionally found in some online tafâsîr were minor and could not lead to confusion. See Andrew
Rippin, “The Study of Tafsîr in the 21st Century: E-texts and their Scholarly Use.” MELA Notes, No. 69/70
(Fall 1999-Spring 2000): 1-13.
6 Although Jazâ’irî was born and trained as a mâlikî, his conversion to salafism makes him a
representative of Salafî tafsîr rooted in Ḥanbalî school.
CONCLUSION
255
twenty-four years after the death of the Prophet.7 Some historians believe that his father,
Munabbih, was originally from northern parts of Khorâsân or Fârs (both in today’s Iran),
and that he had migrated to Yemen a few decades before the beginning of the prophetic
mission of the Prophet Muḥammad in Najd. It has been said that Munabbih had
converted to Islam before Wahb was born, so some scholars suggest that Wahb was born
a Muslim. But because of Wahb’s profound knowledge of Jewish texts, others have
argued that he was a faithful Jewish scholar until a certain age, when he would have
decided to convert into Islam after having already studied Jewish texts for many years.8
Wahb is one the most controversial early mufassirûn. While some muḥâddithûn
and mufassirûn such as Bukhârî, Ibn Mâjah, and Jazâ’irî consider him among the
strongest authorities in tafsîr, some others such as Ṭûsî, Ibn Khaldûn, and Ibn Kathîr
accuse him of being a manipulator of aḥâdîth and a confounder of tafâsîr. Ibn Kathîr, at
the end of his tafsîr on âyahs 27:20-44 in which the story of Solomon and the Queen of
Sheba is narrated, concludes:
The closest to truth [al-aqrab] about stories such as this one [that I cited] is
that these [stories] come from the People of the Book, from what can be
found in their texts, such as narratives of Ka‘b [al-Aḥbâr] and Wahb [ibn
Munabbih], may God the Glorious forgive them for the impossible and the
far-from-truth, and the strange things that they narrated to people of this
umma about the news of the Banû-Isrâ’îl [Jews], things that happened and
did not happen, and things that altered, changed, and abrogated [the
Truth]. And indeed, Allâh the Almighty has made us free from these [none
sense narratives] by what is more correct, more useful, more clear, and
more articulated, and praise and gratitude be to Allâh.9
Knowing Wahb’s controversial reputation, it is difficult to find a work of tafsîr that
ignores his name and do not refer to some or all of his commentaries. As Todd Lawson
mentions:
Wahb, highly regarded in many traditions circles, is the source of many
7 In some Muslim sources, his name comes with Ka‘b al-Aḥbâr and ‘Abdullâh b. Salâm as three Jewish
rabbis or sages who converted into Islam.
8 Tod Lawson is among those who prefer the possibility of Wahb being born a Muslim. To support his
conviction, he gives two references: the works of Raif Georges Khoury and Joseph Horovitz. See Lawson,
The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan, p. 52, n. 24.
9 Ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr, under 27:44, available online at http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-
8.html (consulted on Sep. 21st 2012).
CONCLUSION
256
traditions dealing with other biblical subjects and, in modern times
especially (but not exclusively), much of his exegetical and biblical
tradition has been anathematized as Isrâ’îliyât. In light of this, it is
somewhat ironic that the most influential traditions denying that Jesus was
crucified are traced to his authority.10
Ṭabarî is not the first mufassir who cites Wahb on Jesus’ crucifixion.11
As he himself
mentions it, his source for Wahb’s narratives is ‘Abd b. Ḥamîd (d. 249H) who heard them
from Ya‘qûb al-Qumî 12
(d. 174H) who, in his turn, narrated them from Hârûn b. ‘Antarah
(d. 142H).13
Knowing that Ya‘qûb al-Qumî and Hârûn b. ‘Antarah were both muḥâddith
and not mufassir, it would mean that Ibn Ḥamîd was the first mufassir to include Wahb’s
narratives in his tafsîr on 4:157. But since his tafsîr has not been preserved (except for a
few pages), until an authentic manuscript of his work is discovered, Ṭabarî remains the
first mufassir who cites completely Wahb’s narratives on Jesus’ crucifixion, and to whose
original text of tafsîr scholars have access.14
Many mufassirûn, including most of those
studied in this thesis, follow Ṭabarî in partially or fully narrating Wahb’s commentaries
on the crucifixion.15
Despite Wahb’s importance in tafsîr, the numerous reports about his life and
personality remain between myth and reality. What can be said with certainty is that he
was born and lived in an era when outside Yemen, Islam was in full expansion. As Hugh
Goddard explains:
By 642/21 [a decade before Wahb’s birth] the Muslim state had conquered
and established its control over the majority of the Sassanian Persian
Empire, … [as well as] a large part of the Byzantine Empire. … The
Sassanian Empire was destroyed … and the Byzantine Empire lost roughly
10 Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan, 49-50.
11
Lawson states: “By far the most popular versions of the substitution legend are related on the authority
of Wahb.” See ibid. In fact, although Ṭabarî is not the first mufassir who cites them, the popularity of
Wahb’s narratives is due to Ṭabarî’s choice of not only including them in his tafsîr, but also preferring
them to other versions of the crucifixion’s story.
12
His full name is Abu al-Ḥasan Ya‘qûb b. ‘Abdullâh b. Sa‘d b. Mâlik al-Ash‘arî al-Qumî.
13
His full name is Abu ‘Abd al-Raḥmân Hârûn b. ‘Antarah b. ‘Abd al-Raḥmân al-Shaybânî. He is also
known as Ibn abi Wakî‘.
14
Ṭabarî’s rhetoric when presenting his sources clearly shows that he had access only to ‘Abd ibn
Ḥamîd’s work.
15
In this regard, Qurṭubî is an exception, but the absence of Wahb’s narratives in his tafsîr is as
meaningful as their presence in other tafâsîr. This issue is discussed in pages 258-60 of this thesis.
CONCLUSION
257
one half of its territory. Within the next century, the Islamic state
continued its expansion, so that by 750/133 [two decades after Wahb’s
death] it had become the largest state seen up until that point in human
history, having incorporated north Africa, Spain, the most fertile parts of
central Asia, and much of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. After
750/133 the process of expansion, it is true, came to a halt for several
centuries, and a process of, on the other hand, consolidation, and, on the
other, fragmentation began…16
Because of what Goddard calls “fragmentation,” in Yemen as in many other regions,
every few years, political power shifted from one authority to another, often as a result of
a rebellion. In the middle of this unstable situation, and because of his erudition and his
powerful rhetoric, Wahb was appointed, at a young age, as the official khaṭîb (preacher)
of the Mosque of Sana’a, and soon became the qâḍî of Sana’a. He was able to keep
successfully his different positions throughout these shifts in political power, and
collaborated with different authorities who often were enemies to each other.
One of the best biographies of Wahb, by far, is the one written by Alfred-Louis de
Prémare.17
He briefly explains the chaotic political context in which Wahb transmitted
his aḥâdîth, and preached his Qur’ânic exegeses. He writes:
Wahb était encore enfant lors de la guerre civile qui suivit le meurtre du
troisième successeur de Muḥammad, ‘Uṯmân, en 656, et qui avait mis aux
16 Hugh Goddard, A Story of Christian-Muslim Relations. Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2001 (p. 34).
17
While being careful about the sources of Wahb’s biography, de Prémare mistakenly do not see the very
pejorative aspect of isrâ’îliyât, and considers it as “Israeli traditions” that explain the Qur’ânic narratives
on other prophets. He writes:
II [Wahb] doit surtout sa fortune au fait qu’il a été considéré comme le représentant type
du genre appelé les Isrâyliyyât, ces « Traditions israélites » auxquelles recouraient les
commentateurs musulmans pour expliquer les narrations ou les allusions coraniques
autour des prophètes et des personnages bibliques anciens.
See Alfred-Louis de Prémare, “Wahb B. Munabbih, une figure singulière du premier islam.” Annales.
Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 60e année, No. 3 (May-June 2005): 531-549 (p. 531). In a long article, Roberto
Tottoli studies the early usages of the term isrâ’îlîyyât trying to prove that it was not initially used by some
early Muslim scholars as a pejorative term. He mentions that the first appearance of the term is in
Mas‘ûdî’s famous work Murûj al-Dhahab wa Ma‘âdin al-Jawhar. In fact, in Mas‘ûdî’s passage partially
cited by Tottoli, the term isrâ’îliyyât is used in juxtaposition with ‘ajâ’ib al-biḥâr (the wonders of the seas)
in a long sentence presenting both as the extremes of what its veracity is uncertain. Tottoli does not bother
to explain what the common point is between isrâ’îliyyât and ‘ajâ’ib al-biḥâr. Also, he does not pay
attention to the important expression of hia lâhiqa (a downgrading way of saying: “that [uncertain thing]
joins”) used instead of hia muta‘alliqa bi (that belongs to) at the beginning of the sentence. Tottoli’s further
translations of other Muslim sources suffer from the same weakness. See Roberto Tottoli, “Origin and Use
of the term isrâ’îliyyât in Muslim Literature.” Arabica, T. 46, Fasc. 2 (1999): 193-210 (pp. 194-5).
CONCLUSION
258
prises ‘Alî, gendre de Muḥammad, ancêtre du chiisme, et son rival
Mu‘âwiya, cousin de ‘Uṯmân et gouverneur de Damas. II était âgé d’une
trentaine d’années lors de la deuxième guerre civile, qui opposa les
souverains omeyyades de Damas et le clan qurayshite d’lbn Zubayr, lequel
avait été proclamé calife à La Mecque et avait réuni sous son obédience le
Hedjâz et le Yémen. Par la suite, prédicateur à la mosquée de Sanaa, il eut
à composer avec l’un ou l’autre des gouverneurs omeyyades de la famille
ou de la tribu de Ḥağğâğ b. Yûsuf, homme lige du calife ‘Abd al-Malik,
qui avait mis fin à la sécession d’lbn al-Zubayr. Il exerça les fonctions de
cadi à Sanaa sous le règne de ‘Umar II b. ‘Abd al-‘Azîz (717- 720). Enfin,
il mourut, victime de la bastonnade, vers 730, pendant le règne du calife
Hišâm b. ‘Abd al-Malik (724-743), une vingtaine d’années avant la chute
de la dynastie (750).18
So, Wahb was born in an era when, on the one hand, the two powerful pillars of
theological stability in Islam, ḥadîth and tafsîr, were at their early stages of formation,
and, on the other, the young Muslim Empire (and the Muslim identity), now facing a
much wider geographical context than the initial Najd region within the Arabian
peninsula, needed more precise elements/lines to define itself vis-à-vis the defeated
inhabitants of the newly conquered territories. To my knowledge, the influence of
Wahb’s accounts of the Qur’ânic biblical stories on the Muslim conqueror rulers of his
era is not studied yet, but it seems undeniable that his narratives affected those rulers’
perception of conquered Christians, and by doing so, contributed to the formation of an
interreligious context and a general atmosphere in which shurûṭ (the treaties between
Muslim conquerors and Non-Muslim conquereds) were written and imposed.19
However,
his life was long enough to transmit what he believed to be the truth about the Qur’ân and
its biblical stories, and at a very old age, while his aḥâdîth and commentaries had reached
the farthest corners of the vast Islamic Empire, he was imprisoned because of his
opinions on qadar (predestination). There, he was beaten to death.
4.3.2 Ṭabarî
Ṭabarî’s brief biography is mentioned in the first chapter of this thesis. A decent
explanation about the legacy of this brilliant mind would require numerous pages, but the
18 Ibid., 532-3.
19
For a detailed study of those treaties see Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire :
From Surrener to Coexistence. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2011.
CONCLUSION
259
following paragraph from McAuliffe is very relevant to the focus of this thesis:
By the use of a number of formulaic expressions, al-Ṭabarî has organized
the various sorts of exegetical material that may be applied to a particular
verse. While he clearly aimed at comprehensiveness and was careful to
include interpretations with which ultimately he did not agree, this
commentator had very little patience with those who strayed too far from
the literal sense. He was quick to discount such hypotheses as simply
unsupported by the text. In similar fashion did he shy away from useless
speculation about matters on which the text was silent. An example of the
commonsensical approach that has won him such a central position in the
history of Qur’ânic exegesis may be found in his treatment of sûrat al-
mâ’idah 5:114, the verse from which that sûrat derives its name “The
Table.” The verse is a prayer from Jesus the son of Mary, asking God “to
send down on us a table from heaven which would be for us a feast….”
After citing numerous aḥâdîth that sought to discern the various delicacies
the table might have held, al-Ṭabarî matter-of-factly states: “As for the
correct view about what was on the table, it is said to be something to eat.
Maybe it was fish or bread; maybe it was fruit from Paradise. There is no
benefit in knowing and no harm in not knowing.” Such reasoned insight
has made al-Ṭabarî’s work an indispensable reference for all subsequent
exegetical endeavor. Not only has it been the source of various
condensations and extracts, it has served as a major authority for more
than a thousand years of Qur’ânic exegesis.20
4.3.3 Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib 21
Abu Muḥammad Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib Hammûsh b. Muḥammad b. Mukhtâr al-Qaysî al-
Qayrawânî (355-437H) was born in Qairawan (in today’s Tunisia) at a time when
Qairawân was an educational center attracting Qur’ânic students and scholars from
neighboring regions such as Andalusia, Sudan and Morocco. Very soon, his talent and
thirst for Qur’ânic knowledge was bigger than what his hometown had to offer, so from
the age of 13, he started to travel frequently to Egypt where he was able to participate in
the highest academic circles, learning advanced Qur’ânic sciences from some most
reputed scholars of his era such as Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Muṭarrif al-Kanânî (d. 54H),
‘Abd al-Mun‘im b. ‘Abdullâh b. Ghalyûn (d. 389H), and his son Ṭâhir. 22
At the age of
19, he was a ḥâfiẓ and a great reciter of the Qur’ân, as well as a linguist and an articulated
20 McAuliffe, Qur’ânic Christians, 43-4.
21
Not to be confused with Abu Ṭâlib al-Makkî (d. 386H), the Shi’î jurist and Sufî mystic.
22
Some report Ibn Sulaymân al-Lakhmî as one of Makkî’s teachers in Egypt. Knowing that al-Lakhmî
lived between 260 and 360H, it seems so unlikely that Makkî could have met him before his death.
CONCLUSION
260
letterman in Arabic. Between that ages until he migrated to Cordoba in 393H, he traveled
several times to different Islamic centers of science, including Mecca where he stayed
about four years benefiting from the seasonal and temporary presence of the greatest
‘ulamâ of different madhâhib in that “carrefour of science.”23
Although Makkî was raised
in a Mâlikî tradition, his open mind and immense modesty enabled him to examine and
study the best of each madhhab, turning him into a great scholar of the Qur’ân with a vast
and deep knowledge on various debated Qur’ânic issues. His numerous and important
writings in different fields of Islamic Sciences, such as Qur’ânic sciences, Arabic
grammar and language, jurisprudence, biographies and more importantly tafsîr, have
made him an unavoidable reference in the Sunnî Muslim world.24
When he migrated to
Cordoba, the major waves of conversion to Islam had already passed and Cordoba was
among the most populated and diverse cities in the Muslim World. Makkî wrote his 70
volumes tafsîr during his 44 years of residence in that city where despite the conflicts and
shifts of power between the central caliphal authority and the local independent Umayyad
caliphate of Cordoba, the city had kept its glorious place at the zenith of cultural and
intellectual activities in the Muslim world. Makkî wrote his tafsîr in a place and at a time
marked by the constructive and peaceful relationship between adherents of different
faiths. Cordoba had inherited not only the inclusivist spirit of ‘Abd al-Raḥmân III, but
also the marvelous library of al-Ḥakam II housing close to half a million volumes of
human wisdom from around the world in different languages. The last decade of Makkî’s
life was under the Jahwarid Dynasty:
Years of civil war following the breakdown of central caliphal authority in
1008 [C.E.] prompted the Cordoban council of notables, led by a
prominent aristocrat, Abu al-Ḥazm Jahwar ibn Jahwar, to abolish the
23 Al-Jazrî (751-833H) reports some of those scholars to be Abu al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Farâs (d. 395H)
and Abu al-Qâsim ‘Ubaydullâh al-Saqaṭî (d. 406H). See Shams al-Dîn abu al-Khayr Muḥammad b.
Muḥammad b. Muḥammad ‘Ali ibn al-Jazrî, Ghâyat al-Nihâyat fi Ṭabaqât al-Qurrâ’. 2 vols. Beirut: Dâr
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2006 (vol. 2, pp. 309-10).
24
In fact, in the science of the recitation of the Qur’ân, Makkî is a reliable source for both Shi’îs and
Sunnîs. His important contribution to the canonization of the actual commonly accepted seven qirâ’at of
the Qur’ân has been studied and discussed by many Muslim scholars. However, it is surprizing to know
that despite his undeniable importance, he is commonly ignored by western scholars of the concerned
fields. For his major work on the recitation of the Qur’ân, see Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib, Kitâb al-Kashf ‘an
Wujûh al-qirâ’ât al-sab‘. 2 vols. Edited by M. Ramadan. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risâlat, 1987.
CONCLUSION
261
institution of the caliphate and proclaim Cordoba a republic. Jahwar was
elected head and, as virtually an absolute sovereign ostensibly assisted by
a council, restored peace and economic prosperity in his 12-year-reign
(1031-43).25
It was during that peaceful period that Makkî finished his tafsîr as well as his many other
works in different fields of Islamic Sciences. Although Makkî carefully kept his distance
from political power and lived a very simple life till his death, his erudition attracted
many scholars and students, and his lectures at the Great Mosque of Cordoba placed him
as an exceptional khaṭîb among those preaching at that Mosque.26
Nuha Khoury’s
description of the Great Mosque of Cordoba at the end of the 10th
century fairly reflects
the ambiance in which Makkî wrote his tafsîr. She writes:
This identity [of the Mosque of Cordoba in the 10th
century] is defined
partly through the Andalusian capital’s own association with ‘ilm and with
Maliki principles of ittibâ‘, thereby providing a primary link with
Medinese practices and underlining the Andalusian Umayyads’
preservation of established Islamic ideals. Later compilations of the merits
(faḍâ’il) of al-Andalus make it a desirable location for the acquisition of
knowledge (dâr hijra li-al-‘ilm) and a land whose Islamization was
prophesied by the Prophet. Throughout its various stages, the mosque is
presented as the physical embodiment of these qualities and a fulfillment
of the prophetic message.27
4.3.4 Qurṭubî
Abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. abi Bakr al-Anṣârî al-Qurṭubî was born in
Cordoba around 610H, two years after “the combined armies of Leon, Castile, Portugal
and Aragon, reinforced by Crusaders from France and Germany, had won a decisive
victory over the al-Muḥâddith at the Battle of Las Novas de Tolosa.” Thus, it is not
surprising that from a very young age, his life was affected by conflicts between
25 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Academic Edition, under Jahwarid Dynasty, available online at
http://www.britannica.com (consulted on Sep. 25th
2012).
26
Some report that after the Yûnus b. ‘Abdullâh al-Qâḍî, the official preacher of the Great Mosque of
Cordoba passed away in 429H, Abu al-Ḥazm Jahwar (d. 435H) appointed Makkî as the official preacher
and the qâḍî al-quḍât (the main judge) of Cordoba. There is no record of Makkî having officially judged in
Cordoba, but there are some undocumented stories telling that he accepted the job of official khaṭîb of the
Great Mosque of Cordoba with the condition that he does not receive any salary for it.
27
Nuha N. N. Khoury, “The Meaning of the Great Mosque of Cordoba in the Tenth Century.” Muqarnas,
vol. 13 (1996): 80-98 (p. 83).
CONCLUSION
262
Christians and Muslims. In fact, Qurṭubî’s father, a simple farmer, was assassinated by
Spanish Christian soldiers during an invasion in 627H/1229C.E. So at the age of 17, he
became the bread bearer for his poor family, and parallel to his Qur’ânic studies at
school, he had to work in a clay workshop. But even this feeble stability did not last long,
and six years later, Cordoba fell in the hands of Christians. In 633, Qurṭubî fled to
Alexandria and then to Cairo where he could participate in the circles of some of the most
well-reputed erudites of his era, such as Abu al-‘Abbâs Aḥmad al-Anṣârî (d. 686H).
Being a pacifist by nature, very soon Qurṭubî decided to leave Cairo and isolate himself
in Minyat Banî Khaṣîb (the capital of the minya governorate in Upper Egypt) where far
from all disturbances and disorders, including the shift of power from Ayyubids to
Mamlûks, people were living in relative peace.28
Qurṭubî wrote his tafsîr in an era
marked by the end of the Fatimid Golden Age for Jews and Christians and the beginning
of internal conflicts and external wars in almost every corner of the vast Islamic Empire.
Nazeer Ahmed gives a brief but clear description of that historical context:
[While al-Muḥâddith lost to Christian crusaders in Tolosa,] Genghiz Khan
devastated Central Asia and Persia region (1219-1222) and Baghdad itself
was threatened…. Sensing an historic opportunity, the Christian powers
openly sought an alliance with the Mongols against the Muslims. … While
Genghiz Khan was devastating Samarqand and Bukhara, a German army
invaded Egypt (1218-1221). The Muslim world was thus faced with a two-
pronged invasion from a Mongol-Crusader axis. The onslaught was total,
with the avowed intent of capturing Muslim lands and extirpating Islam.
After the Battle of Las Novas de Tolosa, Muslim political power in
Andalus declined rapidly. By 1230, Mongol horsemen were riding into
28 As Donald P. Little mentions it, the conflicts between Muslims and Christians began much later in
Minyat Banî Khaṣîb. In fact, it was decades after Qurṭubî’s death that a new wave of mandatory conversion
to Islam arrived to that region. Little writes:
… a period of relative calm lasting almost 35 years set in which was broken only by
occasional, isolated incidents of unrest. In 724/1324, for example, the Mamlûks destroyed
five churches in Minyat Banî Khaṣîb when they discovered that the Christians had rebuilt
the churches that had been destroyed there.” Even that event, as Little cites it from al-
Maqrîzî, was not a preplanned decision of Muslim rulers. It started simply because
“Mamlûk detachment sent to Minya was stoned by a crowd protesting against the
functionaries (mubâshirûn) of the town. After the Mamlûks had dispersed the crowd by
charging it, they found that 360 blue (Christian) turbans had been left behind in the melée
! It was then that they decided to destroy the churches.
See Donald P. Little, “Coptic Conversion to Islam under the Baḥrî Mamlûks, 692-755/1293-1354.” Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 39, No. 3 (1976): 552-569 (p.
565).
CONCLUSION
263
eastern Anatolia and knocking at the gates of Delhi. In Spain, political
disintegration led to a free-for-all with local emirs seeking alliances with
Christian powers against each other. The Crusaders were only too willing
to provide military help in return for military cooperation against other
Muslim princes. …Valencia was taken in 1200. The Balearic Islands in the
western Mediterranean fell in 1230. Southern Portugal was lost in 1231.
Cordoba, the seat of the Umayyad Caliphate fell in 1236. The conquest
was complete with the fall of Seville in 1248…. Between 1219 and 1260,
the Muslims lost more than half of their dominions. …The Crusaders had
formed a geopolitical alliance with the Mongols with the avowed intent of
eliminating Islam. …The loss of the Andalusian Peninsula was much more
than a local military event. Until the expulsion of the Muslims in 1492,
Europe was bottled up from the southwest. The conquest of Spain and
Portugal freed up the energies of Europe and it was now poised to venture
out into the Atlantic. Beyond the blue waters of the vast ocean lay the gold
coast of Africa, the route to the Americas and the riches of the Indian
Ocean. The loss of Andalus was to reverberate through the centuries in the
European discovery of America, the slave trade from West Africa and the
colonization of Asia.29
It was in this era of anarchy that Qurṭubî became one of the most famous exegetes of the
Muslim world. Although he had the opportunity of taking advantage of that chaotic
situation, offering his “pen” in return for positions that were hastily offered to whoever
could help the stabilization of power, and later to the Islamization of Christians under the
Mamlûks, Qurṭubî kept very distant from all authorities and lived a very simple life, like
his contemporary thinker Ibn ‘Arabî. However, unlike Ibn ‘Arabî who travelled all
around the Islamic Empire, Qurṭubî did not show any interest in travelling, and stayed in
Minyat Banî Khaṣîb all the rest of his productive life.30
When he passed away in 671H,
his fame had reached the farthest cities of the Islamic Empire although he himself had
never left his little village once he had settled in it.
4.3.5 Ibn Kathîr
Ibn Kathîr’s short biography can be read in the first chapter of this thesis. The following
29 Nazeer Ahmed, “The Fall of Cordoba.” In An Encyclopaedia of Islamic History. No page number.
Concord, CA: e-published by history of Islam Web Site, available online at
http://historyofislam.com/contents/the-classical-period/cordoba-the-fall-of/ (consulted on Sep. 27th
2012).
30
I could not find any trace of Qurṭubî even going to the Ḥajj. This, of course, corresponds very well to
his simple life not reaching the level of istitâ’at (the financial basic level that makes ḥajj an obligation for
the adherent).
CONCLUSION
264
paragraph from McAuliffe completes it in a relevant way for our own present purposes:
Ibn Kathîr’s commentary is distinguished by the incorporation of
significant historical material from non-Muslim sources. A good example
of this may be found in his discussion of sûrat Âl ‘Imrân (3):55, where he
reviews the first three and a half centuries of Christian history, including
the reign of Constantine the Great. … The Iraqi scholar, Qâsim al-Qaysî
… remarks on Ibn Kathîr’s assessment procedures by saying: “When
Imâm Ibn Kathîr quoted a statement from someone like Ibn Jarîr [al-
Ṭabarî] or [Fakhr al-Dîn] al-Râzî, he did not accept it on blind faith [bi-
mujarrad al-taqlîd]. Rather he formed his opinion of it. When he tought it
correct, he confirmed it. When he thought it incorrect, he rejected and
criticized it.”31
4.3.6 Suyûṭî
Abu al-Faḍl ‘Abd al-Raḥmân b. abi Bakr Jalâl al-Dîn al-Suyûṭî (849-911H) also known
as ibn al-kutub (son of books) was born in Cairo in a family well known for the erudition
and the wealth of its men. Despite the loss of his father at the age of five, as a tradition in
his family, he continued his education under the supervision of the great Ḥanafî jurist,
Kamâl al-Dîn b. al-Humâm (790-861H) to whom Suyûṭî’s father had entrusted him. At
the age of eight Suyûṭî was a ḥâfiẓ, and continued to memorize a collection of books
including Alfiyyah ibn Mâlik, a rhymed book explaining the Arabic grammar in one
thousand poetic verses. At the age of 15, Suyûṭî was better known and more respected
than most erudites of his era including some of his own teachers, and at the age of 17 his
classes were among the most crowded circles of education in Cairo. His fame at such a
young age did not stop him from participating in the lectures of some of the most reputed
teachers of his era, such as Sirâj al-Dîn al-Balqînî (d. 805H), his son ‘Ilm-al-Dîn al-
Balqînî (d. 868H), and Sharaf al-Dîn al-Manâwî (d. 857H) with whom he learned tafsîr.
Suyûṭî had an insatiable thirst for knowledge. The number of teachers from whom he
received ijâzah (the authorization of teaching or issuing fatwas) or under whom he
studied reaches more than 150.32
Suyûṭî’s profound erudition in various fields and sciences, from Arabic grammar
and mathematics to history and jurisprudence, made him incomparable to his
31 Ibid., 75.
32
Suyûṭî’s pupil, the famous historian Muḥammad ‘Ali Shams al-Dîn al-Dâwûdî (d. 945) the author of
Ṭabaqât al-Mufassirîn mentions more than 150 teachers of Suyûṭî, and lists them in alphabetical order.
CONCLUSION
265
contemporary scholars. Being one of the most trusted and respected grammarians of all
time, his opinion on any linguistic dispute has always been considered by many scholars
as the final answer to the problem. When Suyûṭî achieved his first ijâza for both teaching
and issuing fatwâs at the age of 27 (from ‘Ilm al-Dîn al-Balqînî), it was clear that a
brilliant future filled with high governmental positions lay in front of him. But Suyûṭî
was not interested in getting involved in politics. He lived under the rule of 13 different
Mamlûk Sultans. He decisively kept distance from all of them, refusing their honors and
gifts.33
Instead, in order to meet some great scholars of his era, he organized a series of
trips to some major academic centers of the Islamic Empire in Syria, Yemen, Maghreb,
and even India. He also traveled to the Ḥijâz where after doing his ḥajj, he stayed a whole
year discussing scientific issues with many well-known erudites of his time.
When Suyûṭî returned from his trips, Muslims in Cairo were living under the
Burji Mamlûk Sultan, Sayf al-Dîn Qa’it Bay, who ruled from 872H/1467C.E. to his death
in 901H/1495C.E., at a time considered as the culmination of Mamlûk’s glory. But even
in that period relations between Muslims and Christians were uncertain.34
Hugh Goddard
states:
The Byzantine Empire by this time [the end of the 15th
century] had
become a shadow of its former self. Decimated, as we have seen, by the
Fourth Crusade, it had at least managed to throw off Latin rule in
1262/659, but since then it had become, sandwiched as it was between
Ottoman territories in Europe and Ottoman territories in Asia, virtually a
vassal-state of the Ottoman Sultans; and in 1453/857 Constantinople itself
was finally taken by Sultan Mehmed (Muḥammad) II (1451/855-
1481/886).35
As Goddard explains, the conquest of Constantinople was not the end of Ottoman
invasions of Christian territories. It was continued all the way towards central Europe,
culminating in the siege of Vienna in 1529C.E., which marked the end of Sulayman the
33 There are even some reports on conflicts between Suyûṭî and some of his contemporary Mamlûk
Sultans. He himself mentions his hidden life during the 100 days of the governance of Tuman Bay I (d.
1515H).
34
In fact, only two decades before Suyûṭî was born, Mamlûks had invaded the Christian-held island of
Cyprus, adding it to their vast kingdom, so Suyûṭî grew up in a social context still filled with anti-Christian
feelings.
35
Hugh Goddard, A Story of Christian-Muslim Relations. Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2001 (p.
111).
CONCLUSION
266
Magnificent, and subsequent Ottaman rulers’ hopes to expand even further their
European territories. With a few exceptions, after centuries of crusades and scattered
battles between Muslims and Christians mostly in different regions of Europe, the anti-
Christian tendency of any well-known Muslim erudite was highly appreciated and
generously rewarded by both Mamlûk and Ottoman rulers. Although, unlike the
Ottomans, Mamlûks were not at war against Christian kingdoms, they had not forgotten
the betrayal of Christians during the Mogul invasions in Damascus. So, aside from any
question of right or wrong theological reasoning, Mamlûk Sultans understood the
imposition of restrictions on Christians as a useful means to eliminate or reduce a major
threat from within. In that context, issuing anti-Christian fatwâs was sometimes part of
the job for an erudite who was craving for a governmental position. Instances of such
fatwâs under Mamlûks are numerous. For example, in 1417/819H Mamlûks imposed a
dress code to non-Muslims, and prohibited them from riding swift asses. A few years
later, official jobs were restricted for non-Muslims and those who had already been
appointed were fired. In 829H/1426C.E. Malik al-Ashraf Barsbay (825-841H) ordered
Jews and Christians to shorten their turbans and to put an iron ring around their necks
when going to public baths. This last rule was based on a fatwâ that considered non-
Muslims as “impure” human beings. This concept of “non-Muslims’ impurity” enabled
Sultan Jaqmâq (841-856H) to forbid non-Muslim physicians from touching/treating
Muslims in 851H/1448C.E. Even Sayf al-Dîn Qa’it Bay, who was the most tolerant
Mamlûk Sultan vis-à-vis non-Muslims, twice imposed a heavy tribute on dhimmîs, once
in 893H/1488C.E. and another time in 896H/1491C.E.36
Under this latter Sultan, and upon his arrival from his last trip in 890H/1485C.E.,
Suyûṭî accepted a chair in the famous mosque of al-Ẓâhir Baybars.37
But very soon,
following a series of useless harsh verbal and written disputes between him and some
scholars such as Shams al-Dîn al-Jawjarî (821-889H) and Shams al-Dîn al-Sakhâwî (831-
902H), Suyûṭî stopped teaching, cut himself off from the world, isolated himself in his
36 See D. P. Little, “Communal Strife in Late Mamlûk Jerusalem.” Islamic Law and Society, 6 (1999): 69-
96.
37
For more information about the role and the importance of Baybars mosque for Mamlûk Sultans see
Doris Behrens-Abouseif, “Cairo of the Mamluks: A History of the Architecture and Its Culture.” London:
I.B. Tauris and Co. Ltd., 2007.
CONCLUSION
267
house on Rawḍa Island, and far from the hassles of the educational circles focused on
frequent praying and restless writing. As a result, when he passed away about two
decades later in 911H, he left behind him a treasure of more than 500 books and risâlât
(long articles) in different Islamic Sciences. Among his writings, one can find not one,
but two tafâsîr of the Qur’ân: Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân, which is considered by many
as the first work ever written on Qur’ânic Sciences, and his famous al-Durr al-Manthûr fi
Tafsîr al-Ma’thûr, which is one of the most detailed and elaborated tafâsîr of the
Qur’ân.38
4.3.7 Ṭabâṭabâ’î
‘Allâmah Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î is one of the most prominent
mufassirûn in the history of Twelver Shi’î tafâsîr. He was born in a small farmer family
on March 17th
1904 in a village near Tabrîz called Shâd Aâbâd. At the age of five, he lost
his mother, which was followed by the loss of his father four years later. At the age of
nine, his guardian sent him to school where for the next six years he learned to recite the
Qur’ân, and studied the Persian literature and rhetoric. After finishing primary school, he
consecrated the next seven years of his life to the learning of a wide range of arts and
sciences from advanced Arabic grammar, fiqh, and philosophy to pure mathematics,
astronomy, painting and calligraphy. At the age of 25, he moved to Najaf where he found
the opportunity of participating in the lectures and classes of the most prominent Twelver
Shi’î erudites of his era such as Sheykh Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Nâ’înî al-Gharawî (1277-
1355H) and Sheykh Muḥammad Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Ḥasan al-Iṣfahânî (1296-
1361H).39
In 1946, because of the financial crisis caused by World War II, he decided to
return to his native village where for ten years he consecrated his life to agriculture and
38 Before Suyûṭî isolates himself, he had co-authored a tafsîr with his teacher Jalâl al-Dîn al-Muḥillî (d.
864H) entitled Tafsîr al-Jalâlayn (tafsîr composed by two Jalâls). This augments the number of tafâsîr
written by Suyûṭî to three.
39
These two, together with Ḍiyâ’ al-Dîn al-‘Irâqî (1278-1361H) are among the most prominent Shi’î
scholars of their era. In fact, each of them established his own school of thought within Shi’ism. Besides his
many other teachers, Ṭabâṭabâ’î was the student of all three of them. Iṣfahânî was a philosopher, and some
believe that he planted the seeds of a passion for philosophy in Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s heart. Besides his elaborated
tafsîr of the Qur’ân, Ṭabâṭabâ’î is the author of some of the greatest books ever written on Islamic
Philosophy.
CONCLUSION
268
farm activities. Ten years later, in 1956, Ṭabâṭabâ’î decided to leave the farm life and
migrated with his family to the city of Qom, the main center of ḥawza (Twelver Shi’î
traditional schools), where he soon amazed all students and teachers with the depth of his
knowledge and the brilliance of his thought. A couple of years after his arrival, he had
become an icon in almost every Islamic science, and hundreds of advanced level students
were sitting on their knees in his classes.
To many, the year 1956 marks the beginning of Iran’s flourishing economy under
the Pahlavi dynasty. It reached its culmination during what some call “the decade of
Iran’s Golden Economy” (1965-1975C.E.). Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919-1980C.E.),
the last Shah of Iran who had spent his childhood and the best part of his teenage years in
Switzerland, had an insatiable thirst for the westernization of Iran and the importation of
modernity, understood in its American sense and style. Under his kingship, religious non-
Muslim minorities such as Zoroastrians, Jews, Assyrians, Armenians, and other
Christians were living with religious freedom.40
It was in that socio-cultural and political
context that Ṭabâṭabâ’î wrote his tafsîr. In fact, the Shah’s main concerns were with
communism coming from the north and the new political forms of Shi’î Islam stemming
from within Iran.41
He tried to create connection and good relationship with the apolitical
erudites in ḥawza, but Ṭabâṭabâ’î was not interested in any honor or privilege offered by
the government, and did not accept to meet with any authorities. In 1979, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran ended three millennia of monarchy, and replaced it with the first
Islamic Republic. Within less than a few months, many of Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s students became
authorities, and some of his fellow colleagues became men of political power. But
Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s short life after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran demonstrates
40 A quick look at churches and Christian temples built in Pahlavi’s era shows the religious freedom
provided for Christians by Muḥammad Reza Pahlavi. Here is a short list of some of them built in Tehran,
the capital of Iran with the year of construction in between parenthesis (all in Common Era calendar):
Armenian churches: Surp Sarkis Mother Cathedral (1970), Surp Asdvadzadzin Church (1945), Surp
Tarkmantchatz Church (1968), Surp Hovhanness Chapel (1936), Surp Stepanos Chapel (1974), Surp Grigor
Lusavoritch Armenian Catholic Church (1955); Assyrian churches: St. George Church (1962), Holy Mary
Church (1978), St. Joseph Church (1950), Chaldean Catholic Chapel (1967), St. Thomas Church (1967).
41
Although the apolitical and anti-political Shi’î groups could have enjoyed the same freedom, the line
between political and non-political Shi’ism, if ever existing, was not clear to Pahlavi. Consequently, all
religious Shi’î groups were supervised and limited by the government. Non-Shi’î groups such as Sufîs and
Isma’îlîs were excepted.
CONCLUSION
269
that he had no interest in having the least share in this newly conquered power in the
name of religious ideals. Instead, he isolated himself in his little office at home, and his
close educational circle was the only place people, including new politicians and men in
power, could meet with him. When he died on November 7th
1981, his only wealth was
his collection of books, his crowning achievement being his brilliant tafsîr of the Qur’ân.
It is not an exaggeration to claim that his tafsîr is by far the most elaborate rational tafsîr
of the Qur’ân ever written by any mufassir, whether Sunnî or Shi’î. For example, as
mentioned before in this thesis, in some cases, despite his extraordinary inclusivist
approach, Ṭabâṭabâ’î prefers an intellectual discussion to the citation of some aḥâdîth
even if at the end they lead to the same conclusion.
4.3.8 Jazâ’irî
Abu Bakr Jâbir b. Mûsâ b. ‘Abd al-Qâdir b. Jâbir al-Jazâ’irî is the only one of the eight
selected mufassirûn for this thesis who, as mentioned before, is still alive (as of October
2012). Jazâ’irî was born in 1921C.E. in a village called Lioua situated on the outskirts of
Biskra, the capital of the Biskra Province in Algeria. It was an era marked by the cruelty
of French colonialists who were ruling over most of North Africa, including all of
Algeria. Becoming an orphan at the first year of his life, Jazâ’irî was raised by his
mother, and under the supervision of his uncles. From an early age, besides studying at
the madrasa of his village, he worked as a shepherd and helped his uncles in various
agricultural activities. At the age of nine, he became a ḥâfiẓ, and soon thereafter left the
village for the closest town, Biskra, where he dedicated his life to the lectures of Shaykh
Na‘îm b. Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Ṣâliḥ al-Na‘îmî (1909-1973C.E.), a mufassir well-known in
that region. As a teenager, he migrated to the capital Algiers where he met Ṭayyib al-
‘Uqbî (1889-1960C.E.), the zealous Algerian Islamist-reformist who had recently
returned from the Ḥijâz with revolutionary ideas about the “salafization” of the Muslim
World. Until then, Jazâ’irî had been trained as a Malikî scholar, but al-‘Uqbî introduced
him to Salafism, and very soon Jazâ’irî became a disciple of al-‘Uqbî and an adherent of
Salafism. Al-‘Uqbî was an activist and had founded “Cercle du Progrès,” (the Circle of
Progress), an Islamist movement of liberation from French colonialism. Jazâ’irî followed
him and became an active member of many movements such as “L’Association d’Appel
CONCLUSION
270
à l’Islam” (the Call to Islam Association) and the movement of “Des Jeunes Croyants”
(Young believers). He even published, for a while, a journal called al-Dâ‘î (the Caller)
and invited his fellow citizens to Salafism. The journal did not survive, and al-‘Uqbî
offered him the editorial of “Liwâ” (flag), the porte-parole of “Des jeunes Croyants.”
Jazâ’irî grew up and worked in an era when Algerian Muslims suffered discriminations
and were severely controlled by the French colonial rulers. He witnessed the sufferings
and humiliations of World War II in which Algerian Muslims had to fight for France.
Much can be written about the Algerians’ anti-Christian and/or anti-foreigner feelings in
which Jazâ’irî grew up and worked as a result of these injustices, but it will not add much
to his xenophobic fundamentalist approach linked to his Salafist worldview. In fact, he
did not stay long enough in Algeria to witness his fellow citizens’ efforts and feelings
during the war of Independence (1954-1962C.E.), or their joy on the day of Algeria’s
independence from France. He had a more important concern. His project of salafization
of the Muslim World brought him to Medina where he received and accepted a high
official position upon his arrival in 1951C.E. It is probably safe to assume that, in such a
context, he developed a negative position vis-à-vis de creation of the State of Israel in
1948. However, nothing in his website mentions anything about Israel. Yet, from his
tafsir, it is clear that he demonstrates a strong anti-Jewish perspective.
According to Jazâ’irî’s official web site, he completed his knowledge of the
Qur’ân in Medina, and soon obtained the licence of teaching and preaching at the
Mosque of the Prophet.42
It is in that important mosque that, for the past four decades, he
has preached and has taught his tafsîr. From the very first day, Jazâ’irî has always been a
highly respected friend of Saudi authorities and very close to various members of the
Saudi royal family. However, none of the numerous official positions and honors he has
received in his long life can be compared to his unofficial reputation as “The Mufassir”
of Salafism. Finally, it is important to mention that despite Jazâ’irî’s eminent stature in
the Saudi-Salafi world, his tafsîr has not been the object of much attention among
Western scholars. The inclusion of this contemporary tafsîr among the eight selected
tafâsîr for this thesis reflects my effort to be as widely inclusive as possible, within the
42 Neither his web site, nor other sources mention the name and the reputation of erudites/teachers from
whom Jazâ’irî learned Qur’ânic sciences including the science of tafsîr. See http://algzaeri.com (consulted
on Sep. 28th
2012).
CONCLUSION
271
limits imposed on any doctoral research. It also allows me to create an important
analytical bridge between old and new tafâsîr, demonstrating that the same theoretical
framework of identity and power dynamics can be applied to an analysis and
interpretation of a topic that continues to foster debates among the believers of the two
most numerous religious traditions in the contemporary world.
4.4 Jesus and the Story Tellers in the Islamic Tradition
A comprehensive presentation of books and articles written on “Jesus in Islam” or “Islam
and Jesus” is beyond the scope of this thesis. In terms of their form, those works range
from thin-few-pages booklets to thick-encyclopaedic-size books. In terms of their
content, as mentioned before, they line up on a wide spectrum including proselytizing
pro-Christian and anti-Muslim writings at one end, and apologetic pro-Muslim anti-
Christian writings at the other end. In between these two extremes, one can find hundreds
of works using various approaches and uncountable methods trying to find a definitive
answer to some simple yet crucial questions, such as: Who is Jesus in the Qur’ân? What
is the truth about his nature and his mission? And what happened to him at the end of his
life on earth? What all those works have in common is that, regardless of the convictions
they are promoting and the nature of their respective approaches, whether rational or
confessional, their two indispensable sources of information are the Qur’ân and the
Ḥadîth.
In this thesis, while I also go back to the fountainhead of the Qur’ân and the
Ḥadîth, I do not aim to find a definitive answer to any of the above-mentioned questions.
Neither do I try to choose or prove any of the existing rational or confessional answers
offered by scholars or by adherents of one of the two concerned faiths. On the contrary,
my main goal is to study how mufassirûn’s efforts to reveal the truth vis-à-vis the
crucifixion of Jesus on the last day of his life on earth reflects their relationship to the
power dynamics at play within their respective socio-political contexts. In this last
chapter of my thesis, I therefore try to show how the Qur’ân’s definitive answer to the
question of the crucifixion is “you do not know, and your efforts will not help you to
know,” and how this Qur’ânic emphasis on the unknowable aspect of the crucifixion is
CONCLUSION
272
the Qur’ân’s unique and challenging starting point for a constructive
relationship/dialogue between Muslims and Christians.
The story about Jesus in the Qur’ân has been discussed within qaṣaṣ al-anbyâ’
(stories of the prophets). This part is a subcategory of the thematic division of qaṣaṣ al-
qur’ân (stories of the Qur’ân).43
In fact, qaṣaṣ al-qur’ân together with âyât al-tawḥîd
(theological âyahs on the unicity of God) and âyât al-aḥkâm (âyahs revealing orders of
jurisprudence) form the three major thematic subdivisions of the Qur’ânic text. The
stories of the prophets are so important that their study is considered independently as
one of the 14 sciences/arts that compose ‘ulûm al-qur’ân (Sciences of the Qur’ân).44
Thus, it is not surprising to know that besides their work of tafsîr, some mufassirûn have
consecrated complete works to the particular subject matter of Qur’ânic stories of the
prophets. Although Wahb ibn Munabbih seems to be the first mufassir who has ever
written on the stories of the prophets, his original work is lost, and our only access to his
work is through later mufassirûn who have cited him. According to some Western
scholars such as Roberto Tottoli and Camilla Adang, the first original Muslim works on
43 To refer to the stories of the prophets or the narratives of the Qur’ân, some scholars use the expressions
of qiṣaṣ al-anbyâ’ or qiṣaṣ al-qur’ân. Although the meaning of qaṣaṣ (narratives) is close to qiṣaṣ
(preachings), this latter is considered as a bid‘a of first Umayyad caliphs who broadcasted narratives
recited by their official qâṣṣ (preachers/story tellers) in public (especially during battles) to convince
Muslims about the divine roots of caliphs’ power. For a study on the practice of qiṣaṣ in early Muslim
societies see Khalil ‘Athamina, “Al-Qaṣaṣ: Its Emergence, Religious Origin and Its Socio-Political Impact
on Early Muslim Society.” Studia Islamica, No. 76 (1992): 53-74. Since 1992, few scholars seem to have
payed attention to this article in order to distinguish between qâṣṣ (the official story tellers/preachers in
Umayyad era) and erudites who interpreted the Qur’ânic stories of the prophets. For an example of a recent
work in which the term qaṣaṣ al-anbyâ’ is used as a reference to stories of the prophets in the Qur’ân see
Ayaz Afsar, “A Comparative Study of the Art of Jonah/Yûnus Narrative in the Bible and the Qur’ân.”
Islamic Studies, vol. 48, No. 3 (Autumn 2009): 319-339. For a work on qiṣaṣ showing that the job of
official qâṣṣ was to narrate qiṣaṣ al-qur’ân (and not qaṣaṣ) see Bradley J. Cook, “The Book of Abraham
and the Islamic Qiṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’ (Tales of the Prophets) Extant Literature.” Dialogue: A Journal of
Mormon Thought (no date): 127-146. E-published by dialoguejournal.com, available online at
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_137.pdf (consulted on
Oct. 11th
2012).
44
The other 13 are târikh al-qur’ân (the history of the Qur’ân), ‘ilm al-rasm (the Science of calligraphy),
‘ilm makkî wa madanî (the knowledge about makkî or madanî), ‘ilm asbâb al-nuzûl (the knowledge about
the occasions of the revelation), ‘ilm al-nâsikh wa al-mansûkh (the Science of abrogator and abrogated),
‘ilm al-muḥkam wa al-mutashâbih (the Science of muḥkam and mutashâbih), taḥaddî wa al-i‘jâz (the
knowledge of the miraculous and inimitable aspect of the Qur’ân), ‘ilm al-tafsîr (the Science of tafsîr), ‘ilm
al-qirâ’at wa al-tajwîd wa al-tartîl (the Science of the recitation of the Qur’ân), al-ṣarf wa al-naḥw (the
Science of the Qur’ân’s grammar and syntax), ‘ilm gharîb al-qur’ân (the terminology of Qur’ânic words),
and finally fann al-tarjumat al-qur’ân (the Art of translating the Qur’ân).
CONCLUSION
273
the stories of the prophets that are partly accessible today are the books of Abu Ḥudhayfa
Isḥâq ibn Bishr al-Kâhilî (d. 206 or 218 or 228H)45
entitled Kitâb al-Mubtada’ al-Dunyâ
wa Qaṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’ (the book of the beginning of the world and the stories of the
prophets)46
, and that of Ibn Wathîma al-Fârsî (d.289H) entitled Kitâb Bad’ al-Khalq wa
Qaṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’47
(the book of the beginning of the creation and the stories of the
prophets).48
Tottoli writes:
Because of the wealth of material cited and the accurate disposition of the
material, the stories of the prophets of Ibn Bishr gained an enormous
diffusion and became one of the most important sources for the literary
genre. Some medieval works made significant use of it, as for example the
Qur’ânic commentary of al-Suyûṭî (d. 1505), the universal history of Ibn
Kathîr (d. 1373) and the monumental biographical dictionary of Ibn
‘Asâkir (d. 1176). At the same time, the material passed on was subjected
to criticism, the same that involved some of the sources most often used
such as Muqâtil and Muḥammad ibn Isḥâq: use of legends taken from
storytellers and converts and of accounts of dubious Islamic origin. This
view of the sources which deemed them suspect was also shared in by al-
Ṭabarî who avoided the use of the work by Isḥâq ibn Bishr for the
compilation of his commentary. The same considerations are called forth
by another collection of the stories of the prophets from a few decades
after ibn Bishr. This is Kitâb al-mubtada’ wa qiṣaṣ al-anbyâ’ … attributed
to ‘Umâra ibn Wathîma. 49
45 Camilla Adang mentions Ibn Bishr’s death date as 206H, but Ibn Ḥajar mentions two different dates:
218H narrated from Mûsâ b. Hârûn, and 228H narrated from al-Khaṭîb in his book Târîkh al-Baghdâd. See
Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1996 (p. 13); also see Shihâb al-Dîn Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Muḥammad ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalânî, Lisân
al-Mizân. 7 vols. Beirut: Mu’assisat al-A‘lamî li al-Maṭbû’ât, 1986 (vol. 1, pp. 147-9), available online at
http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/waraq/coverpage?bookid=258 (consulted on Oct.11th
2012).
46
Tottoli presents the book’s title as Kitâb al-mubtada’ wa qiṣaṣ al-anbyâ’. A few pages earlier in his
book, he has considered this title to be that of Wahb ibn Munabbih’s lost book. He does not explain if this
is a general title used by both authors or not. See Roberto Tottoli, Biblical Prophets in the Qur’ân and the
Muslim Literature. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. 2002 (pp. 139, 144).
47
Adang believes that Ibn Wathîma’s book was written by his father Wathîma b. Mûsâ and revised by his
son Ibn Wathîma. Tottoli mentions both possibilities of authorship but does not prefer one to the other. A
French translation of the rediscovered part of Ibn Wathîma’s book has been published in 1978. See Abu
Rifâ‘a ‘Umâra b. Wathîma al-Fârsî, Kitâb Bad’ al-Khalq wa Qaṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’. Translated in French as Les
légendes prophétiques dans l’Islam. Translated and edited by Raif Georges Khoury. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.1978.
48
Surprisingly, all references of Tottoli and Adang are other Western scholars who have worked on these
two documents before them such as Khoury and Nagel.
49
Tottoli, Biblical Prophets in the Qur’ân and the Muslim Literature, 144.
CONCLUSION
274
In fact, the Ibn Bishr to whom Suyûṭî and some other mufassirûn refer is Abu Ḥudhayfa
Isḥâq ibn Bishr b. Muḥammad b. ‘Abdullâh b. Sâlim al-Bukhârî, the author of numerous
books including Kitâb al-Mubtada’ and Kitâb al-Jamal, and not Isḥâq ibn Bishr b.
Muqâtil al-Kâhilî al-Kûfî, the story teller of the prophets’ story to whom Tottoli refers.
Also, in Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr, there is no mention of Ibn Bishr’s kunyah (see Ibn Kathîr’s
tafsîr on 18:83). Thus, it seems that the first part of Tottoli’s conviction about the
importance and the influence of Ibn Bishr is about an Ibn Bishr whose book on the stories
of the prophets is lost but has been cited by some mufassirûn, and his reputation
encouraged a preacher with the same name and kunya to write a similar book
immediately rejected and classified under isrâ’îliyyât by the vast majority of mufassirûn.
However, there is no doubt that the second part of Tottoli’s argument is valid about Ibn
Bishr al-Kâhilî, the qâṣṣ (preacher). This prosopographical challenge has been discussed
in detail by Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalânî, the author of Lisân al-Mizân in ‘ilm al-rijâl (the
Science of men). Ibn Ḥajar mentions that some Muslim scholars such as Ibn Hibbân
(270-354H)50
and Ibn al-Jawzî (d. 510-592H)51
have made the same mistake and have
taken Isḥâq ibn Bishr al-Kâhilî for Isḥâq ibn Bishr al-Bukhârî.52
He reports that Ibn Bishr
al-Kâhilî has been blamed by the strong majority of scholars of ‘ilm al-rijâl as al-
kadhdhâb (the liar) and al-tâlif (the waster of [time for those who seek the truth]).53
As Tottoli rightly mentions, to mufassirûn, the credibility of Ibn Wathîma or his
father is not higher than their contemporary story teller Ibn Bishr al-Kâhilî. The only
difference is that Ibn Wathîma’s work has been more ignored than rejected. Despite all
the debates on the credibility of Wahb ibn Munabbih, the failure of later narrators such as
Ibn Bishr al-Kâhilî and Ibn Wathîma helps Wahb to remain the first and relatively most
credible source of information about the stories of prophets among mufassirûn.54
50 He is Abu Ḥâtam Muḥammad b. Hibbân b. Aḥmad b. Hibbân al-Tamîmî al-Bustî, the author of several
books including a major book in ‘ilm al-rijâl entitled Al-Thiqât wa al-Majrûḥîn min al- Muḥâddithîn.
51
He is Abu al-Faraj ‘Abd al-Raḥmân b. ‘Ali Jamâl al-Dîn al-Baghdâdî, the author of more than 380
books and risâlât including Al-Lubâb fi Qaṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’ (the hearts in/about the stories of the prophets).
52
Ibn Nadîm distinguishes between these two by calling the second one Ibn Bashîr.
53
Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalânî, Lisân al-Mizân (vol. 1, pp.147-9), available online at
http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/waraq/coverpage?bookid=258 (consulted on Oct. 11th
2012).
54
Stephen Lambden has e-published a relatively good list of books/articles on qaṣaṣ al-anbyâ’ written in
both Western and Muslim worlds. See Stephen Lambden, A Bibliographical List of Works on the Stories of
the Prophets. Online document, e-publsihed by the author’s personal web site, 2007-8, available online at
CONCLUSION
275
4.5 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus
Ṭabarî’s tafsîr is the first preserved text where Wahb ibn Munabbih’s narratives of the
crucifixion of Jesus can be read. Before reading what Ṭabarî has recorded, it is important
to mention two points: first, before translating Ṭabarî’s text, I compared three different
publications of his tafsîr,55
and I could not find major differences between them.56
Second, in my translations, I carefully respect the punctuation and the order of words,
sentences, and paragraphs in my selected tafâsîr, including Ṭabarî’s tafsîr. Thus,
sometimes my translations might come across as “strange” in English. To help my reader,
I occasionally add a free translation of a word and/or a free re-translation of a confusing
sentence in between brackets, but most of the time, I follow the format/linguistic
structure of the original text.
Following is the concerned âyah (4:157) in its textual context (4:150-62):
م هۦ ويقولون ن ور قوا بين ٱلل هۦ ويريدون أن يفر ور ن ببعض ونڪفر إن ٱلذين يكفرون بٱلل
افرون حق ـو هم ٱلك ـو بيل أول ذوا بين تل ا ببعض ويريدون أن يت هي ا م ذاب فرين ـو ك تدنا ل وأ
تيهم أ وف ي ـو م أول قوا بين أحد م هۦ ولم يفر ور ا جورهم وٱلذين ءاموا بٱلل فور ان ٱلل و
ـو ٱلكت أه ا يسـ حيم ماء ر ن ٱلس ا م ب ـو ت م ي ل قالوا أرنا ب أن تز بر من تل أ ىو ألوا مو قد
مهم عقة بظ ـو جهرة أخذتهم ٱلص ٱلل من بعد ما جاءتهم ٱلبي ذوا ٱلعج ثم ٱت ن تل ت عفونا ـو
ا لهم ٱدخوا ٱلب قهم وق ـو ا ورعا وقهم ٱلطور بميبي ا م
ـو ط ىو ا لهم ل وءاتيا مو ا وق د ج ا
يظ قا ـو ي م م بت وأخذنا م بياء تعدوا ى ٱلس وقتهم ٱلن ت ٱلل ـو فرهم بـ اي قهم و ـو ي م م ا بما نقض
وقولهم قوبا بغير ح وبكفرهم وقولهم
مون إل قيل يا بكفرهم ل ي طبع ٱلل ىو ب
وما قتوه ول ٱلل يسى ٱبن مريم ر ا ٱلمسيح ا وقولهم إنا قت ظيم ا ـو ت كن مريم ب ـو وما صبوه ول
ه شب ه لهم م وإن ٱلذين ٱختفوا يه لفى ش م إل ٱت باع ٱلظن ما لهم بهۦ من عه ا ب ر وما قتوه يقي
إليه موتهۦ ٱلل من بهۦ قب ب إل لي ـو ٱلكت ن أه ا وإن م ا حكيم زيز ان ٱلل مة يكون و ـو ويوم ٱلقي
ا يد م ش ي ٱلل بي ن هم ت أحت لهم وبصد ـو م طي ب ي ما ذين هادوا حرن ٱل م م ا بظ ير
ط ـو هم أموتل ٱلاس بٱلب ه وأ ا وقد نوا بوو فرين وأخذهم ٱلر ـو ك تدنا ل كن وأ ـو ا ل ذابا أليم م م
وما أنزل من قب مون بما أنزل إلي مون ي م وٱلم م م ون ى ٱلع ت ة ٱلر وو وٱلمقيمين ٱلص
وٱليوم ٱ مون بٱلل ة وٱلم ڪوو تون ٱلز اوٱلم ظيم ا م أجر تي ـو لخر أول
Lo! those who disbelieve in Allâh and His messengers, and seek to make
distinction between Allâh and His messengers, and say: We believe in
http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/, under “Arabic and Islamic Studies, Notes and Bibliography”
then under Qaṣaṣ al-anbyâ’ (consulted on Oct. 12th
2012).
55
My three references were the editions of Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân. 12 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1997, available online at www.almeshkat.net; Jâmi‘ al-Bayân ‘an Ta’wîl Ây al-
Qur’ân. 16 vols. Edited by Maḥmûd Muḥammad Shâkir and Aḥmad Muḥammad Shâkir. 2nd
ed. Cairo:
Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah, no date; and Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân. 24 vols. Edited by Aḥmad
Muḥammad Shâkir. Riyadh: Mu’assisat al-Risâlat, 2000.
56
The very few minor differences do not change the meaning. For example in one edition the chain of
narration starts with qâla (he said) and in another edition it starts with ḥâdatha (he narrated).
CONCLUSION
276
some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; Such
are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.
But those who believe in Allâh and His messengers and make no
distinction between any of them, unto them Allâh will give their wages;
and Allâh was ever Forgiving, Merciful. The People of the Scripture ask of
thee that thou shouldst cause an (actual) Book to descend upon them from
heaven. They asked a greater thing of Moses aforetime, for they said:
Show us Allâh plainly. The storm of lightning seized them for their
wickedness. Then (even) after that) they chose the calf (for worship) after
clear proofs (of Allâh’s Sovereignty) had come unto them. And We
forgave them that! And We bestowed on Moses evident authority. And We
caused the Mount to tower above them at (the taking of) their covenant:
and We bade them: Enter the gate, prostrate! and We bade them:
Transgress not the Sabbath! and We took from them a firm covenant. Then
because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the
revelations of Allâh, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their
saying: Our hearts are hardened - Nay, but Allâh set a seal upon them for
their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few - And because of their
disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny; And
because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allâh’s
messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him [and they crucified him
not], but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning
it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allâh took him up unto
Himself. Allâh was ever Mighty, Wise. There is not one of the People of
the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of
Resurrection he will be a witness against them - Because of the
wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before)
made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allâh’s
way, And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their
devouring people’s wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those
of them who disbelieve a painful doom. But those of them who are firm in
knowledge and the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee,
and that which was revealed before thee, especially the diligent in prayer
and those who pay the poor-due, the believers in Allâh and the Last Day.
Upon these We shall bestow immense reward.
4.5.1 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ṭabarî’s tafsîr
Ṭabarî’s tafsîr on 4:157 is long and detailed. It reads:
What can be said in ta’wîl of His saying: “And because of their saying: We
slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allâh’s messenger –and they slew
him not, and they crucified him not, but it appeared so unto them”
Abu Ja‘far said: [Allâh] glory be to his admiration means: And
because of their saying We slew the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. Then
CONCLUSION
277
Allâh denies them in their saying, and said: “and they slew him, and they
crucified him not, but it appeared so unto them,” meaning: they did not
slay Jesus and [they] did not crucify him but it appeared so unto them.
The experts of ta’wîl have disagreed on the nature of what
appeared unto Jews about the event of Jesus. So, some have said: When
the Jews surrounded him [Jesus] and his disciples, they surrounded them
while not having any knowledge about the [physical characteristics of the]
person of Jesus [not knowing him], and that they all [all disciples of Jesus]
were made [turned or changed into] ṣûrat [the likeness] of Jesus, so it
became difficult for those who wanted to kill Jesus, Jesus from others
among them, and some [one] of those who were in the house with Jesus
came out to them, so they killed him and considered him to be Jesus.
Here is a record of those who have said so: Narrated to us Ibn
Ḥamîd who said: thanâ [narrated to us from] Ya‘qûb al-Qumî, [narrated]
from Hârûn ibn ‘Antarah [narrated] from Wahb ibn Munabbih: Jesus came
and with him were seventeen of al-ḥawâriyîn [the disciples] in a house,
and they surrounded them.57
When they entered to them Allâh made them
all the likeness of Jesus, so they said: you bewitched us! Indeed whether
you verily make it clear for us who is Jesus [point out Jesus to us] or verily
we kill you all [together]! So Jesus said to aṣḥâbihî [his companions]: who
among you trades his nafs today with paradise? So a man among them
said: me! So he [the man] went out to them and said: I am Jesus, and Allâh
had made him the likeness of Jesus, so they took him and killed him and
crucified him. So because of that it appeared so unto them, and they
supposed that indeed they slew Jesus, and al-naṣârâ [Christians] supposed
like that [that] indeed he [was] Jesus, and Allâh raised Jesus from that day
[of his life] on.58
A few points need to be raised before I start my analysis. First, in Ṭabarî’s tafsîr, on a
few occasions, the sentence is not complete and serious grammatical problems occur. For
example, at the seventh line of the third paragraph (in English), the sentence is
incomplete. It reads in Arabic: ‘Isâ min ghayrihi minhum (Jesus from others among
them). Knowing Ṭabarî’s level of erudition in Arabic grammar and syntax, this suggests
three possibilities: 1) the original text had been damaged and one of the first
mustansikhûn (certified copy makers of manuscripts who were editors too) decided to
leave the sentence as is, and his copy has become popular; 2) that mustansikh has
forgotten to copy a word and/or has misread the text; 3) that mustansikh has decided to
57 In Tod Lawson’s translation of this narrative the number of Jesus’ disciples is mentioned as seven. It is
not clear to me if Lawson mistranslates it or the Ṭabarî’s text that he has used is different from the editions
to which I had access. See Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan, 50.
58
Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 4:157, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Oct. 18th
2012).
CONCLUSION
278
wipe out some words and by doing so has tried to slightly manipulate the meaning.
Second, there are several serious critical ironies in this narrative of Wahb. Here
are three examples: 1) the narrative clearly announces that the Jews entered the house by
saying dakhalû ilayhim (They [Jews] entered to them [Jesus and his disciples]). But
immediately, there is a scene in which Jesus talks to his disciples and asks them about the
sacrifice trade. Here the Jewish characters of the narrative do not seem to be as clever as
the reader, so they could recognize who the speaker is.59
2) At the end of the narrative,
the man (the crucified) kharaja ilayhim (goes out to the them [the Jews]), and the reader
wonders when the Jews left the house. 3) At one point of the narrative, all entourage of
Jesus are changed into Jesus’ likeness and at another moment of the story, the man who
answers Jesus’ call changes to the likeness of Jesus. It is not clear if he is there from the
beginning or once everybody else refuses to be sacrificed he enters the scene.
Third, Wahb makes a clear distinction between al-ḥawâriyîn (the disciples) and
al-aṣḥâb (the companions). His narrative suggests that the disciples of Jesus were
numerous, and 17 of them were present on that last day, but when it comes to the
sacrifice trade, Munabbih explicitly states that Jesus talked exclusively to his aṣḥâb, a
term also used for the disciples of the Prophet Muḥammad.60
In the narrative, rajulun
minhum (a man among them) answers to Jesus’ call. The narrative does not help to
understand if that man is one of Jesus’ ḥawâriyîn or one of his aṣḥâb.
Fourth, Wahb is the first narrator in the chain of narration on Jesus’ crucifixion.
Neither Wahb himself, nor Ṭabarî, bother to mention the source(s) from which Wahb has
received this information. Although this none-mention of credible sources is the habitual
characteristic of Wahb’s rhetoric, it is very far from Ṭabarî’s style. In fact, as mentioned
in the first chapter, as a text, Ṭabarî’s tafsîr is long and difficult-to-understand in part due
to his obsession with the full information about the narrators/sources of his citations. In
the case of Wahb’s narrative, Ṭabarî’s silence again suggests his hesitation about the
authenticity of Wahb’s narratives. Ṭabarî continues:
59 This irony is the only one that has been noticed and discussed by Ṭabarî. But he uses it as a proof for the
miraculous nature of what happened to Jesus on his last day on earth.
60
In Lawson’s translation of the narrative both terms of aṣḥâb and ḥawâriyîn are translated as “disciples.”
See Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan, 50.
CONCLUSION
279
And in fact, it has been narrated from Wahb a saying different from this
[the above-translated narrative], and that is: al-Muthanna has narrated from
him [Wahb] and has said: narrated to us Isḥâq [who] said, narrated to us
Ismâ‘îl b. ‘Abd al-Karîm [who] said, narrated to me ‘Abd al-Ṣamad b.
Mu‘qal: he heard Wahb saying: When Allâh informed Jesus the son of
Mary peace be upon him that he [will] be out of the [material] world [al-
dunyâ], he [Jesus] went on weep for al-mawt [the death] and it [accepting
his own death] became difficult to him, so he called the disciples and made
them a meal, then said: be at my presence the night [stay with me tonight],
indeed I need you for something. Then when they gathered around him at
night, [Jesus] fed them and stood up and served them. Then when they
finished their meals [Jesus] started to wash their hands and did their
ablutions with his [own] hands, and dried their hands with his [own]
garment, [but] this became too big to them and they recoiled at it [they felt
reluctant], so [Jesus] said: Verily whoever denies any of what I made
[aṣna‘u] tonight, so [he] is not from me and I [am] not from him! So they
all ratified him, until he got rest of that [and] said: But what I made to you
[did to you] tonight, from [what] I served you food and washed your hands
with my hand, I did it so there [can] be a good example in me for you,
indeed you know that I am the best among you, so some of you must not
vaunt themselves over some others, and [you must] sacrifice your selves
[nafs] for each other [serve others] as I sacrificed myself for you [offered
my soul (nafs) to you]. But my request for which I asked your help, [is] to
pray [call] Allâh for me and to fervently pray all night [tajtahidûn]: So
[Allâh] may postpone my term [ajalî]. Then when they forced their souls
[anfusahum] to prayer and tried to stay awake, sleep captured them [they
fell asleep] and they could not [make] any prayer. [Jesus] began to wake
them up saying: Glory be to Allâh! You could not resist for me one night
helping me within! They said: We swear to Allâh we do not know what
was wrong with us! We used to have many sleepless nights, and we [have
constantly] increased [the number of] those sleepless nights, but tonight we
are not able to endure [a bit of] it, and every time we tried to pray it [the
sleep] blocked the way between us and the prayer! So [Jesus] said: the
shepherd is brought away and the flock is scattered! And he [Jesus] kept
saying things like that giving to himself the news of his death [yan‘â bihi
nafsihî]. Then [Jesus] said: The truth, [is that] one of you will deny me
before the cock crows three times, and one of you will sell me for a paltry
money [darâhim], and he will for sure eat [will benefit from] my price! So
they went out and dispersed, and the Jews were looking for him [Jesus], so
they took Sham‘ûn (Simon) [who was] one of the disciples [ḥawâriyîn],
and said: This is one of his companions [aṣḥâbihî]! He tried [to save his
life] and said: I am not his companion! So they left him alone, then another
group [of Jews] took him [Simon], then he [Simon] tried like that [again].
Then he [Simon] heard the voice of a cock crowing so he cried and it [that
crow or that remembrance] saddened him, when the day came, one of the
disciples [ḥawâriyîn] came to Jews and said: What would you put [aside]
CONCLUSION
280
for me [give me] if I lead you to the Christ? They put [aside] for him
thirteen dirhams, so he took it and led them to him. And it has been
appeared so unto them before that [someone had been changed to the
likeness of Jesus before the disciple leads them to Jesus], so they took him
[that likeness of Jesus] and asked him [the betraying disciple] to [verify
and] insure them [if that person is Jesus], and they bound him [the likeness
of Jesus] with ropes, and kept leading him around and telling him: You
used to raise from death, and [you used to] torment the Satan [âl-shaytân],
[and you used to] cure the insane, don’t you save [free] yourself from this
rope? They spat upon him, and placed thorn on him [on his head], until
they brought him to the [piece of] wood on which they wanted to crucify
him, so Allâh raised him to Himself, and they crucified what appeared so
unto them, and he stayed [on the cross] seven [hours or days].
Then indeed his mother [Jesus’ mother] and the woman whom
Jesus had treated and whom Allâh had freed from madness came while
weeping before the crucified one, so Jesus came to them and said: For
whom [‘alâma] are you weeping? They said: For you! He said: Verily
Allâh raised me to Himself, and nothing but good befell me, and verily this
is something that has been appeared so unto them, so [go and] order the
disciples to meet me at such-and-such place. So eleven [disciples] met him
at that place. And the one who had sold him and had led [Jews] to him was
missing, so he [Jesus] asked his disciples about him [the betrayer disciple],
and they said: He regretted about what he [had] made, so he hanged and
killed himself. So [Jesus] said: If he had repented, Allâh would have
forgiven him61
Then he [Jesus] asked the [the disciples] about a young
man who was following them who was called Yuḥannâ [John] so he
[Jesus] said: He is with you [he will be one of you], so be dispersed, verily
each human among you will be able to speak the language of a [different]
people, so [go] preach to them [those people] and summon them.62
Unlike Wahb’s short narrative, Ṭabarî’s long narrative does not suffer from incomplete
sentences or grammatical mistakes, but it is full of unusual terms, ambiguous sentences,
uncertain pronouns, and some serious critical ironies. An example for an unusual term is
fastawthaqû minhu (asked him [the betrayer] to ensure them). A glance at any Arabic
dictionary reveals that this is a rare form of wathaqa (ensuring) meaning: “to take
security deposit,” but Ṭabarî uses it to mean: “to ensure them.” An example of an
ambiguous sentence is law tâba latâballâhu ‘alayhi (if he had repented, Allâh would
61 Another possible translation is: “If he repented, then Allâh has forgiven him.” This possibility is weak
because the verb used to refer to the betrayer’s feelings before hanging himself is nadima (he regretted) and
not tâba (he repented). Lawson’s translation is between the two above-mentioned possibilities. He
translates it as: “If he repents, may God forgive him.” See ibid., 51.
62
Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 4:157, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Oct. 18th
2012).
CONCLUSION
281
have forgiven him). This sentence can also be understood as: “if he has repented, for sure,
Allâh has forgiven him.”63
An example for an uncertain pronoun is farafa‘ahullâhi ‘alayhi
(God raised him to Himself). Here the narrative makes a sudden shift with no textual sign
between “him” as a reference to the betrayer and “him” as a reference to Jesus. 64
An
example of critical irony in the narrative is when Jesus asks the two women for whom
they are weeping, and they innocently reply: “For you!” Those women do not seem to be
surprized by seeing Jesus talking while the crucified one for whom they are weeping is
already dead on the cross. A bigger irony in the narrative is that, according to this
narrative, the Jews first kill Jesus and then crucify him. The narrative does not explain the
method of murder. I suggest that here Wahb copies the order of the two verbs of “to slay”
and “to crucify” in 4:157. Although in a highly articulated text such as the Qur’ân, this
order of the verbs can be interpreted and played with, in a vulgar narrative, it can only
suggest an order of events which is contradictory to all tafâsîr of 4:157.
After this second narrative of Wahb, Ṭabarî reports two short narratives from
Qutâdah, another short narrative from Suddî, as well as two short narratives and one long
narrative from Ibn Isḥâq.65
The two narratives of Qutâda are more or less short copies of
Wahb’s long narrative. The short narrative of Suddî is also a copy of Wahb’s short
narrative with some minor differences such as the number of disciples being nineteen
instead of seventeen. But the two short stories and the one long and detailed narrative of
Ibn Isḥâq are, in many ways, different from Wahb’s stories. Within his narratives, Ibn
Isḥâq mentions the number of the disciples as twelve, provides their names one by one,
and gives details that cannot be found in Wahb’s narratives. In his second short narrative,
Ibn Isḥâq introduces to his reader a thirteen person/disciple who appears from nowhere
and accepts to be crucified instead of Jesus. Then he gives details about him in his long
narrative. Ibn Isḥâq mentions the name of this “last minute disciple” as Sarqis (Sarkis).
Neither Ṭabarî, nor those mufassirûn who used his tafsîr as a source, seem to be aware of
the fact that, in Greek, sarkis means “flesh.” An important aspect of Ibn Isḥâq’s long
63 Lawson has a short discussion about the ambiguity of this sentence. For his discussion, see Lawson, The
Crucifixion and the Qurʼan, 51.
64
This also has been mentioned by Lawson. See ibid.
65
Besides these six, all other numerous citations in Ṭabarî’s tafsîr on 4:157 are the repetition of and/or the
clarification about some parts of Wahb’s narratives.
CONCLUSION
282
narrative is that at both ends of his story, he presents his sources and tries to authenticate
his narrative by referring it to Christians themselves. So, at the very beginning, he states
that this is what he has heard from a Christian who converted to Islam, and at the end, he
discusses the opinion according to which the betrayer is the one who was mistakenly
crucified, and he explains that this is what some naṣârâ believe and that Allâh knows
better which version of the story reveals the truth!
Regardless of who this Ibn Isḥâq is,66
Ṭabarî does not pay attention to him, and
concludes that the two possibilities that are closer to the truth are those both narrated by
Wahb. Not only Ṭabarî does not seem to see the numerous ironies in Wahb’s narratives,
but he also considers one of those ironies (the irony of Jews witnessing the conversation
between Jesus and the crucified one not seeing in it a clear sign of who Jesus is) as an
undeniable fact about Jesus’ resurrection and concludes that such a controversial event
must have happened according to one of the two narratives of Wahb:
1) By Allâh’s Will, as narrated from Wahb, what happened on the day of
the crucifixion is that everyone around Jesus [including his disciples] was
changed to his likeness, and when Jews witnessed the conversation
between Jesus and the crucified one, they, who knew very well Jesus in
person, could neither recognize the two speakers from each other nor see
any visible difference between those two and others, so being perplexed,
they killed who they killed, and they saw Jesus in that person. The
disciples also saw Jesus in the crucified one, so they were convinced that
Jesus was crucified, and that is how Jews and Christians today believe that
Jesus was crucified.67
2) As ‘Abd al-Ṣamad al-Mu‘qal narrated it from Wahb, what happened is
that disciples scattered before the arrival of the Jews, then the likeness of
Jesus was cast on one of those who had stayed with him, then Jesus was
raised to the sky and Jews entered when the likeness was waiting for them.
So, not only Jews, but also disciples who had already been absent when
Jesus had been raised to Allâh were convinced that Jesus was crucified.68
66 Most probably, he is Muḥammad b. Isḥâq b. Yasâr, the great historian and the author of Sîrat Rasûl-
Allâh who lived from 85 to 151H.
67
Although Ṭabarî does not explain it, it is clear that in Wahb’s first narrative when everybody turns back
to his own image, the fact that the crucified one does not turn back to his true image convinces the disciples
that he is Jesus. Wahb ends his first narrative with: rafa’allâhu ‘Isâ min yawmihî dhâlik (Allâh raised Jesus
on that day). This short and ambiguous statement suggests that the disciples did not witness the ascension
of true Jesus to the sky, so they were convinced that the only one who did not turn back to his true image is
the real Jesus, in this case, the crucified one.
68
Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 4:157, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Oct. 18th
2012).
CONCLUSION
283
The most important part of Ṭabarî’s tafsîr of 4:157 is his short prescription. He states:
His disciples [the disciples of Jesus] and the Jews believed that the one
who had been killed and crucified was Jesus [not only] because of what
they saw [happening to] his likeness, [but] also [because] what happened
to Jesus [his ascension] was hidden from them. Because his ascension and
the transformation of the murdered one into Jesus’ likeness happened after
his disciples had scattered from [around] him, and indeed they [the
disciples] had heard Jesus weeping over his own death on the night, and
[they had seen him] being saddened by his thought that mawt [death] will
soon descend upon him, so they narrated [to others] what they believed to
be the truth, and the event as [only] Allâh truly knows was different from
what they narrated. Thus, those disciples who narrated it [the story of
Jesus’ crucifixion] do not deserve to be [considered as] liars, since they
narrated what was the outward truth to them although the event as [only]
Allâh truly knows was different from what they narrated.69
Ṭabarî’s repetition of “they narrated what they believed to be the truth” and “the event as
[only] Allâh truly knows was different from what they narrated,” on the one hand, shows
his commitment to what he himself believes to be the truth, and on the other hand, it
reflects his eagerness to reconcile Muslims with Christians. In some handwritten
manuscripts, the seventh volume of his tafsîr ends with 4:158 which, to a great extent, is
the repetition of 4:157, thus giving Ṭabarî an opportunity to emphasize his pacifist
conclusion.70
In other words, in Ṭabarî’s tafsîr, the story of Jesus’ crucifixion and his
death is broken down into two parts: the first part discussed at the end of volume seven,
and the second part discussed at the beginning of volume eight. Whatever the reason is,
Ṭabarî begins the eighth volume with his tafsîr on 4:159 writing:71
Abu Ja‘far said: “There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will
believe in him before his death”, means: [believe] in Jesus “before his
death”, meaning: before the death of Jesus … so the nations will become
one [nation], and that [nation] will be the nation of al-islâm al-ḥanîfiyyah
[monotheistic Islam], the religion of Abraham may the salutations of Allâh
be upon him.72
69 Ibid.
70
4:158 reads: “But Allah took him [Jesus] up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.”
71
4:159 reads: “There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death,
and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them.”
72 Al-Ṭabarî, Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân, under 4:159, available online at www.almeshkat.net
(consulted on Oct. 18th
2012).
CONCLUSION
284
Ṭabarî discusses many other possibilities, but at the end of his tafsîr on 4:159, he comes
back to this first statement and announces it as the right meaning of the âyah.73
This
again reveals his anxious and passionate desire for the harmony of Muslims with ahl al-
kitâb under the same banner of Abrahamic monotheism.
4.5.2 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Makkî Ibn
Abi Ṭâlib’s tafsîr
Makkî’s tafsîr is not as voluminous as most other tafâsîr (920 pages for the whole
Qur’ân). Also, throughout his tafsîr, Makkî keeps a humble tone and a simple rhetoric.
He usually ignores the chains of narrations, and exclusively mentions the first narrator.
These characteristics make his tafsîr an understandable piece of literature for ordinary
Muslims, who have turned it into a usable reference for people’s daily needs.
Makkî’s tafsîr on 4:157 is an extreme case of the above-mentioned characteristics.
Compared to some other âyahs about Jesus, his tafsîr on 4:157 is surprisingly short. It is
composed of three short narratives, and in two of them, he does not provide any narrator
(even the first narrator), and begins with “It has been said.” So, while mentioning only
Wahb’s name, Makkî puts Wahb’s first narrative in between two it-has-been-said
sayings. He writes:
“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah” or because of their
claiming that, so Allâh has denied them in that matter, and has said: “they
slew him not, and they crucified him not, but it appeared so unto them.”
It has been said: Verily, the Jews surrounded Jesus and those who
were with him, and they do not know [compare, yashbahûna] Jesus in
person, so they [people with Jesus] all turned into the likeness of Jesus, so
it became difficult for them the matter of Jesus, so some of those who were
with Jesus in the house went out to them [to the Jews], so they [the Jews]
killed one of them, and thought that he was Jesus.
73 Although it is far from Ṭabarî’s usual mood and/or style to strongly refuse something, when he
discusses the conviction of those who believed that 4:159 means: “There is not one of the People of the
Scripture but will believe in Muḥammad before his own death,” Ṭabarî angrily refuses it and gives a long
argument on why this tafsîr of 4:159 is impossible. Among his arguments, he uses a contextual approach
and writes:
besides all what we discussed about the falsehood of … such a meaning, the name of
Muḥammad peace be upon him does not appear in any of the previous âyahs, so it is only
permissible to refer “him” … to what it [the same him] refers to [in previous âyahs].
See ibid.
CONCLUSION
285
Wahb ibn Munabbih said: Jesus came and with him were seventeen
of al-ḥawâriyîn [the disciples] in a house, and the Jews surrounded them.74
When they [the Jews] entered to them Allâh made them all the likeness of
Jesus, so they [the Jews] said: you bewitched us! Indeed whether you
verily make it clear for us who is Jesus [point out Jesus to us] or verily we
kill you all [together]! So Jesus said to his aṣḥâbihî [companions]: who
among you trades his nafs today with paradise? So a man among them
said: me! So he [the man] went out to them and said: I am Jesus, and Allâh
had made him the likeness of Jesus, so they took him and killed him and
crucified him. So because of that it appeared so unto them, and they
supposed that indeed they slew Jesus, and al-naṣârâ [Christians] supposed
like that [that] indeed he [was] Jesus, and Allâh raised Jesus from that day
[of his life] on.
And it has been said: Verily he [Jesus] was imprisoned in the
palace of the Cesar’s khalifa [governor], then the Jews gathered and went
to him [the governor], he [the governor] thought that they are there to ask
his freedom [Jesus’ freedom], so he said: I am going to free him for you,
they [the Jews] said: But we want his murder, so Allâh raised him [Jesus]
to Himself, so the governor of the Cesar took a man and killed him, and
told the Jews: Indeed I killed him [Jesus], because he was afraid of them,
and that person [the murdered one] is the one who appeared to them [as
Jesus].75
In Makkî’s tafsîr, his use of Wahb’s narrative functions as a more detailed explanation of
Makkî’s first narrative. Nothing in Wahb’s narrative denies or changes the first it-has-
been-said’s version of the story. On the contrary it expands it and clarifies its contexts.
But one might ask why Makkî ignores all discussions provided in earlier sources, to
which he, for sure, had access, and ends his tafsîr with the second it-has-been-said
version of the story? I believe that, to a great extent, this last narrative has been cited to
weaken the role of Jews and to remove the guilt of Jesus’ crucifixion from all characters
in the story. Here, on the one hand, Jews do not kill Jesus. They just ask for it. They
neither surround nor attack the house where Jesus is. They neither threaten the disciples
nor force them to point to Jesus for them. On the other hand, the governor has no enmity
with Jesus. He is even ready to free him if asked. In this narrative, the governor is the
74 In Tod Lawson’s translation of this narrative the number of Jesus’ disciples is mentioned as seven. It is
not clear to me if he mistranslates it or the Ṭabarî’s text that he has used is different from the editions to
which I had access. See Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan, 50.
75
Abu Muḥammad Makkî ibn abi Ṭâlib, Al-Hidâyat ilâ Bulûgh al-Nihâyat fi ‘Ilm Ma‘ânî al-Qur’ân. 13
vols. Sharjah, U.A.E.: Jâmi‘ah al-Shârjah, 2008, under 14:57, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=3962 (consulted on Oct. 19th
2012).
CONCLUSION
286
only one who knows that he has not killed the real Jesus, and that Jesus, somewhat, has
been freed. All insults and tortures mentioned in other narratives are out of context here.
More importantly, the problem of the likeness of Jesus and the miracles attached to him
are out of question here. The narrative suggests that the Jews see the crucified one, once
he is dead on the cross. This presents a more humanly possible way of taking someone
for someone else.
Although in Makkî’s tafsîr on 4:157, no argument supports any of the three
narratives, his tafsîr on 4:158 shows his tendency towards part of Wahb’s narrative. He
writes:
His saying [Allâh’s saying]: “and lo! those who disagree concerning it are
in doubt thereof” means that those Jews who surrounded Jesus and those
who were with him, and wanted his murder, they knew the number of
people in the house before they [the Jews] enter the house, and some
experts of ta’wîl have mentioned: When they [the Jews] entered [the
house] they missed one person in their counting, and they found the
likeness [of Jesus], so by this miscounting Jesus’ affair was hidden from
them, so they doubtfully killed the one on whom the likeness [of Jesus]
was casted.76
But even here, while copying the architectural aspect of Wahb’s screenplay, the story
follows its own smooth rhythm. There is no mention of betrayal, torture, or insult. More
importantly, not only taking someone for Jesus is again a human mistake, but also they
themselves are aware of it. Makkî ends with: “and it has been said: Indeed their doubt
came from [the fact that] some of them thought that he [Jesus] is God and [therefore] he
was not [cannot be] killed.”77
By ending so, Makkî hastily opens a large window to some historical origins of
Christianity, as existed in his time, emerging out of Judaism. His tafsîr is, on the one
hand, a reductionist effort to reduce the subject of Jesus’ crucifixion to a matter of
secondary importance, and on the other hand, a generalizing struggle to gather both the
crucifixion and the divine nature of Jesus under the same simple category of human
mistake. Despite its scientific weaknesses, this approach has the value of bringing down
the serious theological differences/debates from their metaphysical sphere, and putting
76 Ibid.
77
Ibid., under 4:158.
CONCLUSION
287
them in a comprehensible human context. By doing so, regardless of its credibility,
Makkî`s approach helps Muslims build a better relationship with their Christian
neighbours.
4.5.3 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Qurṭubî’s
tafsîr78
Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 4:157 is probably the most confusing text among the eight tafâsîr that
this chapter deals with. On the one hand, Qurṭubî juxtaposes 4:157 with 4:158, and
interprets them together. On the other, he surprisingly changes his usual style, and keeps
complete silence about Ṭabarî’s opinion on the issue. The three main characteristics of
Qurṭubî’s 20 volumes tafsîr are: 1) his explanations are usually long and detailed, 2) he
normally mentions the chains of narrations, and 3) throughout his tafsîr of the Qur’ân, he
repeatedly mentions Ṭabarî’s preference, and refers to him.
Surprisingly, in the case of 4:157, 1) his tafsîr is extremely short - even shorter
than Makkî’s tafsîr on the same âyah- and besides a few grammatical aspects of the âyah,
his short sentences do not go further than the literary meaning of the âyah; 2) with a few
exceptions where he mentions the first narrator, he does not provide any chain of
narration, and repeatedly uses the passive style of “it has been said” (qîla); and 3) he
ignores Ṭabarî, to the extent of not even mentioning his name. Knowing that just one
âyah before and one âyah after that (4:156 and 4:159), he follows his usual style and
discusses different possibilities in detail, including Ṭabarî’s preferences, one might ask
why his hasty tafsîr on 4:157 and 4:158 is so different. But before finding an answer to
this question, here is Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 4:157:79
His saying, the Almighty: “And because of their saying: We slew the
Messiah, Jesus son of Mary” … “Allâh’s messenger” … “And they slew
him not, and they crucified him not” [presents] a denial to their saying.
“but it appeared so unto them” or his likeness [Jesus’ likeness] was casted
78 Since I was surprised by the short length of Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 4:157, I compared my source with a
recent edited edition of his tafsîr. The second source that I consulted is: Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Anṣârî al-
Qurṭubî, Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm al-Qur’ân. 20 vols. Edited by Hushâm Samîr al-Bukhârî. Riyadh: Dâr ‘Âlam
al-Kutub, 2003.
79
In my translation of Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 4:157, three dots “…” are replacements exclusively for
Qurṭubî’s grammatical explanations.
CONCLUSION
288
on someone else as it has been mentioned before in ‘Âl Imrân [3:55]. And
it has been said: They [Jews] did not know him [Jesus] in person, and they
killed whom they killed, and they were in doubt about him [the true
identity of the murdered one], as God the Almighty said: “and lo! those
who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof.” And [about] this
announcement, it has been said: Indeed this [disagreement] is among all of
them [all Jews]. And it has been said: Indeed they did not disagree about it
[the crucifixion] except their ordinary people, and their disagreement
means some [of them] said he [Jesus] was [or is] a god, and some [others
said] he was [or is] the son of Allâh. Al-Ḥasan [al-Baṣrî] said: and it has
been said that their disagreement [comes from the fact that] their ordinary
people said we killed Jesus. And one who had seen his raise [Jesus’ raise]
to the sky: we did not kill him. And it has been said: their disagreement
[comes from the fact that] the Nestorians among Christians said: the
human side of Jesus was crucified and not his divine side. And Melkites
[al-malkâniyyah] said: the crucifixion and the murder happened to both the
human nature and the divine nature of the Christ. And it has been said:
And if this [crucified one] was our friend [one of the companions], so
where is Jesus?! And if this was Jesus where is our friend?! And it has
been said: Their disagreement [comes from the fact that] the Jews said: We
killed him, because Judas who tried to kill Jesus was a leader of Jews. And
a group of Christians said: But we [are the ones who] killed him. And a
group of them [Christians] said: But Allâh raised him to the sky and we
look at him. “They have no knowledge thereof” … and [here] the speech
ends. Then [God] the Almighty and the Exalted said: “save pursuit of a
conjecture” … or they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
conjecture. … And His blessed saying: “they slew him not for certain.” Ibn
‘Abbâs and Suddî said: it means they slew not ẓannahum [their doubt] for
certain, as you [can] say: I killed him with knowledge only if you had a
full knowledge about him [the murdered], so here [also] al-hâ’ [him/it]
refers to their doubt…. Abu ‘Ubayd said: If the meaning was they slew not
Jesus for certain, [God] would have said: And they slew not him faqaṭ [for
sure]. It has been said: They slew not the one who appeared to them as
Jesus with certainty. … And it has been said: they slew not Jesus. … So
there are two possibilities: one of them is that they [the Jews] said we did
not slay him and Allâh informs us that certainly they said so [to
themselves], and the other one is that the meaning is that they [the Jews]
did not know Jesus in person with certainty. … “But Allâh took him up
unto Himself” … or to the sky, [because] Allâh the Almighty is beyond
space and has no place … “And Allâh was ever Mighty” or He is Powerful
to take revenge from Jews, so He gave Petrus ibn Stisânus the Roman [I
could not find this person] power over them, so he [Petrus] killed a lot of
them. “Wise” [means] He [Allâh] has judged them with execration and
wrath.80
80 Al-Qurṭubî, Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm al-Qur’ân, under 4:157, available online at
CONCLUSION
289
Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 4:157 suffers from various problems such as the use of many
pronouns without clear references, snatched sentences, unnecessary repetitions, and
sudden shifts between Jews and Christians. More importantly, his tafsîr does not really
discuss the question of the crucifixion. In fact, his tafsîr of “it appeared so unto them” is
only two sentences. He focuses only on the internal debate among Jews on who Jesus was
(human or God?), as well as on a similar debate among Christians as to whether the
crucifixion happened to Jesus’ human nature or to his divine nature. It is impossible to
believe that Qurṭubî was not aware of Wahb’s narratives and had not read Ṭabarî’s
preference in 4:157. In fact, Qurṭubî ’s denial of Wahb’s authority as a narrator seems to
be the possible reason why he then had to keep complete silence about Ṭabarî’s point of
view in his short explanation about the crucifixion. The ending part of Qurṭubî’s text
reveals his personal position vis-à-vis Jews. Knowing Wahb’s Jewish background, it is
not surprising to see that Qurṭubî decided to keep distance from him. One might think
that the short explanation about the likeness of Jesus being casted on someone else is an
indirect reference to Wahb’s narrative. In reality Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 3:55, which he
himself refers to as his standpoint about the crucifixion, rather confirms another source
for his choice of story. In his tafsîr on 3:55, he cites two narratives, one from Ḍaḥḥâk and
the other from Ibn ‘Abbâs. In both of them, the likeness of Jesus is casted on an unknown
young man who appears in the story at the very last minute.
In his tafsîr on 3:55, Ṭabarî cites Wahb three times. In one of them, he does not
prefer Wahb’s explanation. In contrast, Qurṭubî cites Wahb only once, and it is not
surprising to know that it is that only time that Ṭabarî disagrees with Wahb. So, Qurṭubî
first mentions Ṭabarî’s preference, then cites Wahb and completes it with: “hâdhâ (this
[what Wahb says]) bu‘d jiddan (is really far [from the truth]).81
Right after denying the
authority of Wahb, Qurṭubî writes:
Ḍaḥḥâk said: The story was that when they [the Jews] decided to slay
Jesus, al-ḥawâriyyûn [the disciples] gathered together in a romm, and they
http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/20855n (consulted on Oct. 20
th 2012).
81
This sentence has a grammatical problem. Most probably, the original sentence has been hâdhâ ba‘îd
jiddan (it is really very far), or hâdhâ bâ‘id jiddan (it is really far), so in the first case, the dots of “yâ’,” and
in the second case “alif” must have been erased in the handwritten manuscript, and the editor has decided to
leave it the way it is.
CONCLUSION
290
were twelve men, so Jesus entered from the window [a hole in the wall].
Then Iblîs [Satan] informed a group of Jews, so four thousands of their
men rode [their horses] and blocked the door of the room. So Jesus said to
the disciples: which one of you goes out, and accepts to be killed and will
be with me in the paradise? A man said: me, o the prophet of Allâh, so
Jesus put on him a blanket made of wool, and a [put around his head] a
turban made of wool, and gave to him his own cane, and Jesus’ likeness
was casted on him, so he went out to the Jews, then they killed him and
crucified him. But Jesus, Allâh covered him with wings and put on him a
cloth made of light, and cut from him the pleasure of food and beverage,
so he [Jesus] flew with angels.82
Then Qurṭubî cites a longer version of the story from Ibn ‘Abbâs and writes:
When Allâh decided to raise Jesus to the sky, Jesus who was in a house
where a fountain was running went out to his disciples who were twelve
men. Water was dropping from his hair [Jesus’ hair], so he [Jesus] told
them: Beware one of you will deny me twelve times after that he has
believed in me. Then he said: Which one of you accepts that my likeness
be casted on him, so he will be killed instead of me, and he will be with
me in the same level? A young man among the most recent ones of them
stood up and said: Me, so Jesus said: Sit down, then he [Jesus] repeated
[his question] to them, [but again] the young man stood up and said: Me.
Jesus said: Sit down. Then he [Jesus] repeated [his question] to them
[again, and] the young man stood up and said: Me. Then Jesus said: You
are that one. So Allâh casted on him the likeness of Jesus peace be upon
him. [Ibn ‘Abbâs] said: And Allâh the Almighty raised Jesus from a whole
in the roof to the sky. [Ibn ‘Abbâs] said: And those Jews who were looking
for Jesus came and took the likeness, so they killed him, and then crucified
him. And some of them [disciples] denied Jesus twelve times after they
had believed in him, so [Once the Jews crucified the likeness of Jesus]
they [the disciples] divided into three groups, one group said: Allâh was
among us until He wanted, then He rose to the sky. These are Jacobites (al-
Ya‘qûbiyyah), and another group said: The son of Allâh was among us
until he wanted, then he rose to the sky. These are Nestorians (al-
Nasṭûriyyah), and another group [the third group] said: The servant of
Allâh and his messenger was among us until he wanted, then Allâh raised
him to Himself. These are al-muslimûn [Muslims], so the two pagan
groups rebelled against the Muslim group, and killed them all. From that
time, Islam became ṭâmisan [extinct] until Allâh sent Muḥammad the
salutations of Allâh be upon him, so they [the Jews] were killed [by
Muslims under the leadership of the Prophet Muḥammad]. So Allâh the
Almighty revealed [to the Prophet Muḥammad]: “O ye who believe! Be
Allâh’s helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are
82 Al-Qurṭubî, Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm al-Qur’ân, under 3:55, available online at
http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/20855n (consulted on Oct. 20th
2012).
CONCLUSION
291
my helpers for Allâh? They said: We are Allâh’s helpers. And a party of
the Children of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved. Then We
strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the
uppermost.” [61:14]83
In Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 4:157, it is evident that he purposely ignores Ṭabarî’s preference to
free his text from the citation of Wahb’s narratives. Instead, he presents his choice of the
story of the crucifixion in an âyah where Ṭabarî is silent about those narratives and
happens to disagree with Wahb on a minor issue of the crucifixion.84
As a general aspect
of his tafsîr, Qurṭubî is obviously more concerned with Jews than with Christians. For
example, although in his explanations about different subdivisions of Christianity he
copies Râzî (or the source that Râzî has used for his tafsîr on 4:157), unlike Râzî who
uses the opportunity to carefully discus Christian Christology presenting eight arguments
against the crucifixion of Jesus, Qurṭubî does not go further than citing it, hastily adding
to its end: “so they [the Jews] were killed [by Muslims]” and concluding that 61:14 was
revealed about those Jews who were killed.
A glance at the short lengths of Qurṭubî’s tafâsîr on other Qur’ânic âyahs that are
directly about Christians or deal with Christian theological issues, such as 3:49-52; 5:15;
9:30-1; etc.), and comparing them with the long lengths of his tafâsîr on âyahs that are
about Jews or deal with Jewish doctrines (such as 4:46; 5:41; 6:146; etc.) shows
Qurṭubî’s high level of concern/aversion for Jews, and his relative indifference regarding
Christians.85
4.5.4 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ibn Kathîr’s
tafsîr
Ibn Kathîr combines 4:157 with the two previous âyahs (4:155-6). His tafâsîr on 4:155
83 Ibid.
84
This aspect is that according to Wahb, Jesus was in a state of tawaffâ (close to sleep) for three hours and
then he was raised to the sky, but Ṭabarî prefers the idea that Jesus was raised to the sky fully aware and
with complete consciousness.
85
While trying to find Qur’ânic âyahs on Jews, I checked Al-Mu‘jam al-Mufahras for yahûd under
hawada. To my big surprize, all forms of hawada are mentioned in Mu‘jam except yahûd and
Yuahûdiyyan. This is beyond the scopes of this thesis, but it is worth a study to discover why in such an
incredibly complete reference on Qur’ânic terms, those terms are absent. See Muḥammad Fu’âd ‘Abd al-
Bâqî, Al-Mu‘jam al-Mufahras li Alfâdh al-Qur’ân. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1981 (p 739, under hawada).
CONCLUSION
292
and on 4:157 start with some loathing against Jews, as his tafsîr on 4:156 ends with curse
words against them. He starts his tafsîr on 4:155 with: “This [breaking their covenant
with God] is one of the sins that they [Jews] committed, and it resulted their damnation
and their expel and their distance from the guidance …”86
In his tafsîr on 4:157, before
insulting Jews, he clarifies from the very beginning that Jews know better than anyone
else that they did not kill Jesus. They say so to ridicule Christians and show off their
superiority. He writes:
And their saying: “We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allâh’s
messenger” or this is a position [an honor] they claim for themselves. And
they say so because of [their] vanity and [their] derision [for Christians], as
[the Qur’ân’s citation of] pagans saying: “O thou unto whom the Reminder
is revealed, lo! thou art indeed a madman!” “al-Hijr: 6” [part of 15:6].87
Then Ibn Kathîr begins his own version of the story mentioning his sources as: “It has
been reported about Jews” (kâna min khabar il-yahûd). He writes:
And it has been reported about Jews –May Allâh’s Execrations be on
them, as well as His Rage and His Wrath and His Punishment– that when
Allâh sent Jesus the son of Mary with the signs and the guidance, they
[Jews] felt jealous for what Allâh had given him from the prophecy and
powerful miracles by which he could heal the blind and the leper, and [by
which] he could raise dead by Allâh’s leave, … and despite all that, they
denied him and called him a liar, … and persecuted him to the extent that
[Jesus] the prophet of Allâh could not live in their houses, and he had to
travel all the time with his mother, may peace be upon both of them, and
[the Jews] went as far as asking the king of Damascus in that time, who
was a polytheist man among worshipers of stars, and whose nation was
called al-Yûnân [Greece] and they [the Jews] warned him that in
Jerusalem there is a man who is deluding people and leading them astray,
and [that person] encourages people to rebel against the king, so the king
became angry because of that, and wrote to his governor in Jerusalem to
rule over that person and to crucify him, and to put thorn on his head, and
to save people from his harm. So when the written order reached [the
governor], the governor of Jerusalem obeyed that [order], and he went
with a group of Jews to the house where Jesus was, peace be upon him.
And he [Jesus] was with his companions, twelve or thirteen, and it has
been said: seventeen, and it was a Friday evening, the night of Shabbat, so
86 Ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr, under 4:155, aailable online at http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-
8.html (consulted on Oct. 22nd
2012).
87
Ibid., under 4:157.
CONCLUSION
293
they [the Jews] surrounded him there. So when Jesus felt that, and
[understood that] there is no choice but whether they come in to him or he
goes out to them, he [Jesus] told to his companions: Which one of you
accept that my likeness be casted on him, and he will be rafîqî [my close
friend or my roommate] in the paradise? So a young man intadaba
[begged] for it, but it was like he is too young to do so, so Jesus repeated
[his request] for a second and a third time, and each time, no one answered
but that young man, so he [Jesus] said [to him]: You are him, and the
likeness of Jesus was casted on him to the extent that it was like he [the
young man] was him [Jesus], and a loophole opened in the roof of the
house, and Jesus peace be upon him was taken by a short sleep [a nap],
and he was raised to the sky , and that is what happened as Allâh the
Almighty has said [has described it as following]: “(And remember) when
Allâh said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend
unto Me, and am cleansing thee.” So when he [Jesus] raised, that person
[the young man] went out, when they saw that young man, they thought he
is Jesus, so they took him at night, and they crucified him, and they put
thorn on his head, and the Jews [proudly] announced that they tried for his
crucifixion, and they rejoiced because of that, and some tribes of
Christians, because of their ignorance and their small intelligence, believed
in them, except those who were in the house with Jesus, because they had
witnessed his raise [to the sky]. But others, they thought what Jews
thought, that the crucified one was Christ the son of Mary, and they went
as far as saying that Mary sat down underneath [the cross] of that crucified
[person], and wept, and it is said: He talked to her, and Allâh knows better,
and all this is Allâh’s test for his servants, in what there is in that of the
effective wisdom.88
There are similarities between Ibn Kathîr’s choice of story and that of Makkî, but unlike
Makkî’s story in which no one is guilty, Ibn Kathîr puts an emphasis on Jews’ guilt and
lie. This suggests that, to him, Jesus’ crucifixion must be studied and understood as part
of Jewish history, and not as a major event in Christian history. Ibn Kathîr’s conviction
that first Christians were ignorant and of small intelligence reveals an intentional
underestimation and/or a downgrading of Christian history. His version of the story is a
“royal historiography” in the sense that it provides details about rulers and governors,
their names, their faiths, and even their moods. Although Ibn Kathîr does not mention his
source, his narrative is a hasty copy of Ibn Isḥâq’s version of the story intertwined with
some preaching and prayers. For example, in the middle of his tafsîr, and before moving
to other narratives, Ibn Kathîr pauses to announce:
88 Ibid.
CONCLUSION
294
All this is Allâh’s test for his servants … and here Allâh has clarified [the
truth] about it [Jesus’ crucifixion] and has polished it and has defined it
and has made it evident in the Glorious Qur’ân, [the Qur’ân] that he has
descended upon his noble Messenger, [the Qur’ân which is] confirmed
[and proven] by miracles and by evident signs and by clear reasons, so
Allâh the almighty has said [it] –and he is the most truthful of [all]
speakers, and [He is] the Lord of the two worlds, [and He is] the knower of
all secrets and hidden [thoughts], He is the one who knows the secret in
the heavens and on earth, [He is] the knower of what was and what will be,
[as well as the knower] of if what what is existed how it would have
been.89
In some parts of Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr, beside some insults to Christians and Jews, the
preaching tone and the oral style of his rhetoric are so dominant that one might suggest
that his tafsîr is, at least in part, composed of some of his preaching and prayers in front
of his zealous Muslim audience. Once Ibn Kathîr makes sure that his reader has learned
the meaning of the concerned âyah, he cites a short version of the story from Ibn ‘Abbâs
(cited in Qurṭubî’s tafsîr on 3:55) in which Jesus asks his disciples three times who
accepts to be crucified instead of him, but every time an unknown young man is the only
one who answers him positively. So, Jesus accepts him and announces to his disciples
that some of them will deny him twelve times. Then Jews kill the likeness of Jesus and
some of his disciples deny him twelve times. Like Qurṭubî, Ibn Kathîr includes in Ibn
‘Abbâs’ narrative some teachings about the afore-mentioned three subdivisions within
Christianity, and ends it with: “From that time [the crucifixion], Islam became ṭâmisan
[extinct] until Allâh sent Muḥammad the salutations of Allâh be upon him.”90
And he
immediately informs his reader: “The chain of narration of this [narrative] is intact and it
rightly goes back to Ibn ‘Abbâs, and also Nisâ’î has narrated it from Abi Karîb [who
narrated it] from Abi Mu‘âwiyah.”91
From this point on, Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr on 4:157 is a copy of Ṭabarî’s tafsîr with
three differences: 1) Ibn Kathîr makes sure that his reader will recognize that these parts
89 Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid. Unlike Qurṭubî’s version of Ibn ‘Abbâs’ narrative, Ibn Kathîr’s citation of Ibn ‘Abbâs does not end
with the mention of the murder of Jews by first Muslims as God’s punishment for what they did to Jesus.
Knowing Ibn Kathîr’s zealous efforts to punish Jews as much as possible, in his text, this might suggest
that Qurṭubî added that ending part as his tafsîr on Ibn ‘Abbâs’ last sentence.
CONCLUSION
295
are coming from Ṭabarî’s tafsîr. So, at the beginning of every major section, he adds:
“Ibn Jarîr (Ṭabarî) said.” 2) He decisively dismisses both narratives of Wahb by
mentioning at the end of Wahb’s first narrative: hâdhâ siyâq gharîb jiddan (This is really
a peculiar [strange] story), and declaring at the end of Wahb’s second narrative: siyâq
gharîb jiddan (really a peculiar [strange] story).92
3) While he copies all secondary
citations in Ṭabarî’s work, he omits all important discussions argued by Ṭabarî, including
his inclusivist conclusion.
At the end, Ibn Kathîr replaces Ṭabarî’s long and detailed arguments within which
Ṭabarî mentions Abu Ja‘far’s preference coming from Wahb, as well as his own two
equal preferences both coming from Wahb, by a very short announcement saying: “Ibn
Jarîr has chosen that the likeness of Jesus was casted on all his companions.”93
Regardless of the fact that Ibn Kathîr’s statement is only partially true, this manipulation
removes Ṭabarî’s emphasis on the good intention of the disciples leading to believe in the
theological/intellectual innocence of Christians, and puts it on a physical aspect of the
event which, practically, is of secondary importance for Muslims’ relationship to
Christians. One last word about the surprisingly short ending of Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr on
4:157 is to note that, compared to the preaching and powerfully loud tone he used at the
beginning and throughout the text, Ibn Kathîr’s ending sounds like a short whisper that
raises doubt as to its truthfulness.
4.5.5 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Suyûṭî’s tafsîr
Suyûṭî’s tafsîr on 4:157 is detailed, elaborated and well-articulated. He starts his tafsîr
with Ibn ‘Abbâs’s long narrative, and introduces his first source as Ibn Ḥamîd. In his
citation, the ending part includes the reference to 61:14, but excludes Qurṭubî’s statement
about Jews being killed by Muslims under the leadership of the Prophet Muḥammad.
Suyûṭî then cites Wahb’s long narrative, and presents Ibn Ḥamîd and Ṭabarî as his
sources. This clearly shows that Suyûṭî had access to Ibn Ḥamîd’s work.94
Once the
92 Ibid.
93
Ibid.
94
The fact that Suyûṭî juxtaposes Ibn Ḥamîd with Ṭabarî as his sources together with the fact that Suyûṭî’s
version of Wahb’s long narrative has no difference from Ṭabarî’s version suggest that Ibn Ḥamîd’s version
was also identical to what we have in hand from Ṭabarî.
CONCLUSION
296
narrative ends, Suyûṭî leaves it, and shifts to a few short explanations about some terms
and expressions in 4:157. Then he mentions a short narrative from ‘Abd al-Jabbâr b.
‘Abdlullâh b. Sulaymân95
in which, at the “night of raising,” Jesus advices his
companions to abstain from accepting any wage in the way of God’s book (revelation),
and promises them that, if they do so, God will sit them on pulpits made of stone better
than this world and all precious things in it. He finishes this part by citing Ibn Jabbâr who
believes that those pulpits are what 54:55 refers to when it announces: “Lo! the righteous
will … [be in paradise] in a seat of truth in the presence of an Omnipotent King [God].”
At this point, Suyûṭî cites the longest and the most detailed narrative that one can
find in all tafâsîr on Jesus’ crucifixion. Having Wahb as its first narrator, this narrative is
composed of four episodes. The first three episodes are interdependent and the fourth one
is a follow-up on the adventures of one of Jesus’ disciples establishing the first Christian
state in the world. The second of the four episodes is the short narrative of Wahb (first
narrative) cited in Ṭabarî’s work.96
Suyûṭî does not mention its chain of narration, and
gives Ibn Mandhar (241-318H) as his source.97
Knowing that Ṭabarî’s tafsîr precedes Ibn
Mandhar’s work by more than a decade, it is not surprising to see that Ṭabarî does not
quote Ibn Mandhar, but it is not clear if Ṭabarî had access to Ibn Mandhar’s source or
sources, and decided to exclude marginal episodes of Wahb’s short narrative, or he did
not have access to that source or those sources, because his own source did not include
them. Suyûṭî’s silence about the narrative’s chain of narration does not help us find an
answer to this question. Suyûṭî writes:
And Ibn Mandhar akhraja [has chosen to narrate] from Wahb ibn
95His full name is ‘Abd al-Jabbâr b. ‘Abdlullâh b. Sulaymân b. Sayyid .b Abi Quḥâfa al-Anṣârî al-Baṭliûsî.
He was from the city of Almeria in Spain today. I could not find any biography of him.
96
Although Suyûṭî mentions another source for this narrative, his choice of narrative is an indirect follow
of part of Ṭabarî’s tafsîr.
97
His full name is Abu Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrâhîm b. Mandhar b. al-Jârûd al-Nayshâbûrî. Dhahabî
considers Ibn Mandhar as one of the leaders in the science of ta’wîl, and mentions that Ibn Mandhar has a
great tafsîr (tafsîr kabîr) composed of tons of volumes. There is no mention about the title of this book
either in other works of Ibn Mandhar, or in the works of those who have mentioned its existence. Ibn
Mandhar himself calls it as “the book of tafsîr”.” However, what we have in hand today is a short part of
that tafsîr covering only from 2:227 to 4:92. This short part has been published a few years ago, and is
accessible to scholars now. See Muḥammad b. Ibrâhîm ibn Mandhar, Tafsîr Ibn Mandhar. Edited by
‘Abdullâh b. ‘Abd al-Muḥsin al-Turkî. Medina: Dâr al-Ma’âthir, 1423H.
CONCLUSION
297
Munabbih who said: Indeed Jesus peace be upon him was taking a walk
when he crossed a woman who was drawing water, so he [Jesus] said: [Do
you want to] give me from your water, [a water] that whoever drinks from
it dies [drinking it does not save from death], and [instead] I give you from
my water, a water that gives life to whoever drinks it? [Wahb] said: And it
happened that she was a wise woman, so she told him: How come that
your water that whoever drinks from it gets life does not satiate you [free
you] from my water that whoever drinks from it dies [drinking it does not
save from death]. [Jesus] said: Indeed your water is temporary and my
water is eternal [my water does not satiate worldly thirst, but gives life in
the afterlife]. She said: Maybe you are the man who is called Jesus the son
of Mary? [Jesus] said: Indeed I am him, and I invite you to the worship of
Allâh and [I call you] to abandon whatever you worship besides Allâh the
Almighty. She told him: Give me a proof [show me a sign that what you
are saying is true]. [Jesus] said: The proof is that as soon as you go back to
your husband, he will divorce you. She said: Indeed [if such a thing
happens] there will be an evident sign in it, since no woman among the
[women of] Banî-Îsrâ’îl is as dear as I am to her husband, and if what you
say happens then I will know that you are truthful. [Wahb] said: Then she
returned to her husband, and her husband was a young zealous man
[intolerant of rivalry]. [The husband] asked her: What happened to you?
She said: A man passed by me, and she wanted to inform him about Jesus,
but the zeal filled him and he divorced her, so she said: Verily my master
told me the truth.
So she went out following Jesus and believing in him. Then [one
day] Jesus came to a house and with him was seventeen of his disciples,
and they surrounded them, so they entered to them [Jesus and his
disciples], and Allâh made them all the likeness of Jesus, so they said: you
bewitched us! Indeed whether you verily make it clear for us who is Jesus
[point out Jesus to us] or verily we kill you all [together]! So Jesus said to
aṣḥâbihî [his companions]: who among you trades his nafs today with
paradise? So a man among them said: me! So they took him and killed him
and crucified him. So because of that it appeared so unto them, and they
supposed that indeed they slew Jesus, and al-naṣârâ [Christians] supposed
like that, and Allâh raised Jesus from that day [of his life] on.
So the woman was convinced that Jesus was killed and crucified,
so she went and built a shrine around the roots of Jesus’ tree [cross?] and
she started to pray and mourn for Jesus, but she heard a voice from above,
the voice of Jesus undeniable for her [impossible for her to take it for
someone else’s voice]: O you such woman [calling her name] I swear to
Allâh that indeed they did neither kill me, nor crucify me, but it appeared
so unto them, and the sign for that [for my truthfulness] is that the
disciples will gather together in your house tonight, and they scatter twelve
groups, each group of them will call a nation to the religion of Allâh, then
when the night came, [the disciples] gathered in her house, so she told
them: Verily tonight I heard something that I am going to tell you, and
CONCLUSION
298
maybe you deny me but it is the truth, I heard the voice of Jesus and he
was saying: O you such woman [calling her name] I swear to Allâh that
indeed they did neither kill me, nor crucify me, but it appeared so unto
them, and the sign for that is that you [the disciples] will gather together in
my house tonight, and you scatter twelve groups. They said: Indeed what
you heard [happened] as you heard, verily Jesus was not slew and was not
crucified. Indeed such person was killed and crucified, and we did not
gather in your house but for what [Jesus] said [to you]. We want to reach
out to the [corners of the] earth as callers. So Nestor headed towards al-
Rûm [Rome], and there were two companions with him…98
From this point onwards, the narrative changes its scenes and characters, and continues
with the adventures of Nestor and his two companions. According to the narrative, the
two companions are so eager to call people to the truth that they rush and bluntly tell their
message about Allâh to a king who is a worshiper of idols. The king puts them in prison
to kill them later, but he forgets, and his oblivion gives Nestor the opportunity of
attracting his attention with wisdom and brilliant advices, and slowly building a close
relationship with him. Very soon, Nestor becomes the king’s high advisor, and, as a man
of authority, goes to the prison and visits his companions. In their meeting, Nestor blames
them, and says: “your example is the example of a woman who did not have a child until
she became old, but in old age she gave birth to a child. She wanted that her baby grows
up quickly and being in such a rush, she fed the baby with the kind of food that his
stomach could not digest, so [by feeding him with what he was not ready for] she killed
him.”99
Then Nestor asks them to wait. Later, at the right time, Nestor reminds the king
of the two prisoners and suggests to him to examine the veracity of their message by two
tests. First, asking them to raise a dead person from death, and if they succeed, preparing
a battle between them and the idols to see which one of the two parties can annihilate the
other. The two companions win the first test and, by their prayers to Allâh, raise a dead
man from death. Then Nestor and the king accompanied by all people go to the sanctuary
and prostrate in front of the idols begging of them to destroy the two men who want to
lead people astray. Nestor prostrates too but while prostrating in front of idols, he prays
98 Jalâl al-Dîn ‘Abd al-Raḥmân al-Suyûṭî, Al-Durr al-Manthûr fi Tafsîr bi al-Ma’thûr. 8 vols. Beirut: Dâr
al-Fikr, 1993, under 4:157, available online at http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=466
(consulted on Oct. 25th
2012).
99
Ibid.
CONCLUSION
299
and whispers that he is prostrating to Allâh, and that he is playing a trick to achieve a
bigger goal. Nothing bad happens to the two men. Nestor asks the king to now let the two
men harm the idols. Nestor’s secret companions break all idols in front of people’s eyes
and Nestor publicly announces: “But me, I believe in the Lord of these two!”100
The king
says: “But me, I believe in the Lord of these two!”101
and all people say together: “We
believe in the Lord of these two!”102
The narrative ends with Nestor’s victorious speech
to his two companions saying: hâkadhâ al-rifq103
(Friendship is like this).104
Suyûṭî ends his tafsîr on 4:157 with two short clarifications about the ending part
of the âyah and writes:
And Ibn Jarîr [Ṭabarî] narrated from Ibn ‘Abbâs who said about His saying
[Allâh’s saying]: “Allâh was ever Mighty, Wise”: The meaning of this is
that he [Allâh] is like that.
And Ibn abi Ḥâtam narrated from Ibn ‘Abbâs that a Jew told him
[Ibn ‘Abbâs]: Verily you [Muslims] think that [on that day] Allâh was
Wise [and] Mighty. How is He today? Ibn ‘Abbâs said: Indeed He was
Wise [and] Mighty min nafsihî [by his nature].
There are several important issues about Wahb’s third narrative cited by Suyûṭî: 1) The
episode of the crucifixion is identical to the first narrative of Wahb in Ṭabarî’s work.
Although the narrative itself does not explain who the enemies of Jesus are, and uses the
ambiguous pronoun of “they” before citing it, in a short introduction, Ṭabarî explains that
the event talks about a group of Jews.105
Unlike him, Suyûṭî keeps it as ambiguous as it
sounds. 2) Suyûṭî’s tafsîr on 4:157 is an ensemble of narratives without providing any
argument, discussion, or preference. Knowing his level of erudition in Arabic grammar,
he does not bother to mention some grammatical ambiguities of the âyah, let alone
discussing them. Ṭabarî announces his preference at the end. Ibn Kathîr announces it at
100 Ibid.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid.
104
Probably he means: “This is what friendship can do.”
105
Makkî in his turn replaces the first “they” in the narrative with “the Jews” and solves the problem of its
ambiguity. Qurṭubî uses another narrative, but as translated before, his choice of narrative reports a
conversation between Satan and a group of Jews, clear evidence that Jews are involved in the event of the
crucifixion. Finally, Ibn Kathîr’s tafsîr does not give room to the smallest amount of doubt about the role of
Jews in Jesus’ crucifixion.
CONCLUSION
300
the beginning, but here Suyûṭî keeps complete silence about it. His arrangement of the
text ending with the most complete version of the story might suggest that he prefers the
last narrative which is in part Ṭabarî’s preference, but Suyûṭî omits altogether Ṭabarî’s
opinion. Knowing that in his tafsîr on 4:157 Suyûṭî refers to Ṭabarî four times, all of
them on minor issues, it is evident that Suyûṭî neither wants to take position on the
question of Jesus’ crucifixion, nor does he want to mention other mufassirûn’s opinions.
In his tafsîr on 4:157, Suyûṭî chooses to become more of a story teller than a mufassir.
This reduces the veracity of all narratives cited by him to the level of popular myths. 3)
The narrative places the crucifixion in the center of a very Christian context. In fact, not
only the narrative can be considered as part of Christian history, but it also suggests a
plan to divide it into two parts: pre-crucifixion and post-crucifixion.
Probably the most important aspect of Wahb’s narrative in Suyûṭî’s tafsîr on
4:157 is the moral lessons that it offers to its readership. Those lessons function as the
spirit of the narrative. They are absent in all other narratives including the same narrative
in Ṭabarî’s tafsîr. The three most important lessons can be found in 1) the example of the
old woman who finally gives birth to a child, 2) the scene of Nestor’s prostration in front
of the idols, and 3) Nestor’s final statement at the very last sentence of the narrative.
Together with his arrangement of the text, Suyûṭî’s persistent silence throughout
the cited narratives tries to send a message to Muslims: first, Christians are wrong, but
Muslims have to be patient with them to the extent of affirming some of their wrong
doctrines/rituals if need be. The combination of human patience and divine wisdom can
make miracles changing people’s heart. Physical conflict over theological issues is a loss
of energy, and it rather be replaced by humbleness and wisdom. Second, people follow
their rulers, so Christian rulers must be the target of Muslims’ good tidings. Convincing a
Christian ruler to convert to the true faith (Islam), will consequently result the conversion
of his subjects to the truth. Third, for inviting people to the truth, manliness and
friendship are more efficient tools than swords and weapons.
Suyûṭî’s peaceful tafsîr on 4:157 not only reflects his eagerness for peace, but also
it mirrors the socio-political needs in which his tafsîr was written and read. Here, Suyûṭî
follows a dual strategy: On the one hand, he does not show flexibility vis-à-vis the
possibility of a true crucifixion of Jesus, but on the other hand, in his denial of the
CONCLUSION
301
crucifixion, his silence throughout the text wipes out the highly articulated theological
language –that he masters so well– and replaces it with the popular vulgar rhetoric of the
narratives. His short final conclusion/prescription says the last word: “Let’s be friend.”
4.5.6 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s
tafsîr
Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr on 4:157 is a part of his exegetical effort to explain 4:153-69. His
tafsîr on 4:157 is the shortest one among the eight tafâsîr this chapter deals with. Like
Qurṭubî, to explain the meaning of 4:157, Ṭabâṭabâ’î refers to his tafsîr on 3:55. But
unlike Qurṭubî, his short text is filled with rational arguments and intellectual discussions.
He writes:
His saying: “And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son
of Mary, Allâh’s messenger –and they slew him not, and they crucified
him not, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree
concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save
pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.” In fact, it has been
explained within the stories of Jesus, peace be upon him [mentioned] in
Sûrah Âli-‘Imrân that they [the Jews] disputed over the circumstances of
Jesus’ murder, if he was killed by crucifixion or by another way, so maybe
here the intention of Allâh the Almighty is first [to reveal] about the claim
of his murder [Jesus’ murder], and then [second] mentioning the murder
and the crucifixion together in order to deny and negate a total negation in
a way that gives no room to the least of doubt. Indeed, the crucifixion
being a specific kind of punishment for criminals [in Jesus’ era] does not
always require [result] murder. Also, the mind does not necessarily remind
of it [the crucifixion] when there is a [statement about a] murder. Knowing
that the circumstances of his murder [Jesus’ murder] has [always] been the
subject of debate [among Jews or among Christians], if [the âyah had]
only denied the murder [of Jesus], it could have been interpreted as they
[the Jews] did not slay him [Jesus] a normal way of murder, and this
would not have contradicted [the reality] if they had slew him [Jesus] by
crucifixion. That is why Allâh the Almighty has followed his saying: “they
slew him not” by His saying: “nor they crucified him” so the statement can
become very clear saying that he [Jesus], peace be upon him did not die by
their hands, either by crucifixion, or by a method other than crucifixion,
but it appeared so unto them, and they took someone other than the Christ,
peace be upon him for the Christ, and killed that person or crucified him
[that person]. And this is not far [from the reality] in some cases. Indeed,
in such chaotic, noisy, and aggressive circumstances, it is probable that
someone else was taken as the guilty person, so the Roman soldiers killed
CONCLUSION
302
him [the wrong person], and they did not know him [Jesus] very well in
person, and besides that, different narratives have been mentioned
according to which Allâh the Almight casted the likeness of Jesus on
someone else, and that person was taken and killed instead of him [Jesus].
And maybe it has been said by some scholars of History that the two sets
of stories, the first one being the recorded stories about him [Jesus], peace
be upon him, and the events about his call, and the second being stories
recorded by his contemporary [Jesus’ contemporary] rulers and callers are
about two different men both called the Christ –and between them there
was more than five hundred years–: the first one [of those two christs]
being the true one who was not killed, and the latter being the wrong
[Christ] who was crucified, and [if that is the case, then] what the Qur’ân
mentions about tashbîh [the appearance] is the tashbîh of Jesus Christ the
son of Mary, the messenger of Allâh to the crucified Christ. And Allâh
knows better.106
Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr on 3:55 is as short as his tafsîr on 4:157, but it gives additional details
about his opinion on the crucifixion. There, he writes:
His Saying, the Almighty: “(And remember) when Allâh said: O Jesus!
Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me” al-tawaffâ is
to take [or to receive] something in full, and that is why it [tawaffâ] has
been used as a reference to death [al-mawt], because Allâh takes [receives]
human’s nafs out of the body at the moment of death.107
Then Ṭabâṭabâ’î gives three Qur’ânic examples for tawaffâ and four Qur’ânic examples
for mawt trying to show how tawaffâ is not death (al-mawt) but it rather is the reception
and the preservation of nafs with God. He concludes:
The Jews used to claim that they slew Jesus Christ the son of Mary, peace
be upon him, and Christians used to think that the Jews slew Jesus Christ
the son of Mary, peace be upon him, by the crucifixion. The difference
[between them] is that they [Christians] also think that Âllah glory be to
Him raised him [Jesus] after his death from his tomb to the sky as reported
by the Gospels, and the âyahs as you can see clearly deny the story of the
murder and the crucifixion.108
Three factors distinguish Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr on 4:157 and 3:55 from not only all other
106 Al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, under 4:157, available online at
http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Oct. 30th
2012).
107
Ibid., under 3:55, available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Oct. 30th
2012).
108
Ibid.
CONCLUSION
303
tafâsîr discussed in this chapter, but also most other tafâsîr in the treasury of tafsîr
literature:
First, despite his full knowledge about other tafâsîr, Ṭabâṭabâ’î refuses to cite any
narrative about the story of the crucifixion. He briefly mentions that some narratives want
that the likeness of Jesus be casted on someone else, but he does not take those narratives
seriously. Like Makkî, Ṭabâṭabâ’î discusses the possibility of a human mistake. What
distinguishes Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr from Makkî’s, however, is that Makkî tries to reconcile
the narratives with his theory of the human mistake, while Ṭabâṭabâ’î does not seem to
need, from the very beginning, any narrative. He is clearly against the possibility of any
miracle. Using a realistic and rational approach, he states that these mistakes happen all
the time in a crowded chaotic context, and there is nothing suprahuman about it.
Consequently, in his tafsîr on 4:157, Jews are not bewitched; they are rather ignorant.
Second, this ignorance is not exclusive to those who wanted to slay Jesus. In
Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s tafsîr, we all are also ignorant, and there is no way for us to definitely know
the truth. Ṭabâṭabâ’î states:
This âyah denies what they claimed about slaying Jesus, so he [Jesus] was
saved from the murder and the crucifixion … Indeed, Jesus was raised
with his body and his spirit, and it was not that he first experienced
tawaffâ, and then his spirit went up to Him the Almighty. … In fact, the
emphasis in His saying: “But took him up unto Himself” does not make
sense [lâ yatimmu] by the simple raise of spirit after death that is true for
both murder and natural death [for everybody]. So this [phenomenon of]
raising points to a method of saving by which Allâh saved him [Jesus] and
freed him from their hands, whether [Jesus’] tawaffâ happened through a
natural mawt [death] or it happened beyond natural death or murder or
crucifixion, in a way that we do not know, or he remained preserved and
alive by Allâh’s preservation in a way that we do not [cannot] know, so all
these [possibilities] are possible.109
Third, Ṭabâṭabâ’î’s conclusion about our ignorance and the impossibility of knowing the
truth about the crucifixion enables him to dispense with the crucifixion and focus on a
more important issue. So, unlike other mufassirûn, Ṭabâṭabâ’î switches his main focus
from the crucifixion and what happened on that day to a discussion on tawaffâ and its
109 Ibid., under 4:157, available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Oct. 30
th
2012).
CONCLUSION
304
distinction from mawt. In his tafsîr on 3:55, he gives many Qur’ânic examples of tawaffâ
and mawt, and concludes:
A reflection in these two past [examples of] âyahs [32:11 and 39:42]
reveals that al-tawaffâ is not used in the Qur’ân as a reference to death [al-
mawt], but to put an emphasis on the reception and the preservation. In
other words, al-tawaffâ has been used [in the Qur’ân] to refer to a
[phenomenon of] reception that happens during the death [and by doing so,
the Qur’ân tries] to show that the nafs of human is neither annihilated, nor
destroyed by death, [a death] that the ignorant considers as the destruction
and the annihilation. But Allâh the Almighty preserves it [nafs] until He
resurrects it [on the day of judgment] for the return [of human being] to
Him.110
Ṭabâṭabâ’î stops here, gives a few examples for his conviction (including 4:157), and
moves to the next sentence of 3:55. While he does not draw a clear image of the
crucifixion and what happened to Jesus, his brief explanation offers some raw material
for the development of a theory that can, among others, shed light on the phenomenology
of death in the Qur’ân: the theory of humans’ tripartite nature presented and discussed in
the third chapter of this thesis.
4.5.7 Wahb Ibn Munabbih’s Narratives of the Crucifixion of Jesus in Jazâ’irî’s
tafsîr
Jazâ’irî’s tafsîr on each âyah follows a uniform pattern. He arranges his tafsîr on each
âyah into three consecutive sections: first, sharḥ al-kalimât (explanation of the terms);
second, ma‘nâ al-âyât (meaning of the âyahs); and third, hidâyat al-âyât (guidance of the
âyahs or what the concerned âyahs guide Muslims towards). This latter part is always
presented in a numbered and short-sentence style. Jazâ’irî always keeps silence about his
source(s) of information. Throughout his tafsîr, the names of other mufassirûn are as
absent as the chains of narrations of aḥâdîth or narratives he uses. Although he does not
deny that his knowledge comes from the erudition of scholars and mufassirûn before him,
his silence about his references places his tafsîr as “The” source of information for his
audience. His authoritative tone, his easy-to-understand and vulgar rhetoric, together with
110 Ibid., under 3:55, available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/ (consulted on Oct. 30
th
2012).
CONCLUSION
305
his preaching style, all justify this position for him. His tafsîr on 4:157 is not an
exception. Jazâ’irî interprets 4:157 in the context of 4:155-59. As usual, he starts with
“the explanation of terms.” In this part, he presents the meaning of a few terms including
al-taṣlîb (the crucifixion) defined as: “nailing [someone] to a piece of wood, and killing
him on it.”111
Then he explains the meaning of the âyât in a numbered style text, and
writes:
The subject of these sayings [âyahs] is Jews and [it] reveals the crimes that
[they committed and] caused their damnation and their abjection, and
brought the Wrath of Allâh the Almighty to them … [those crimes are:]
1- Their breaking of [all] treaties and promises specially their covenant
[with God] to act upon what is in the Torah.
2- Their denial of Allâh’s âyahs revealed to His servant and His messenger
Jesus, as well as those revealed to Muḥammad, may the salutations and the
peace of Allâh be upon him.
3- Their murdering of prophets such as Zachariah and John [the Baptist],
and they killed many of them fî ‘uhûd al-mutabâyina [in different times
and places].
4- Their saying our hearts are hardened, to deny the [Prophet
Muḥammad’s] call to Islam… Because of their sins, Allâh the Almighty
has stamped on that [their hearts], and rân ‘alayhâ al-rân [has hardened
that (their hearts) such a hardening], and [Allâh] has prevented them from
accepting the truth in their beliefs and sayings and deeds …
5- Their blasphemy or [their denial] of Jesus and Muḥammad may the
salutations and the peace of Allâh be upon him.
6- Their saying against Mary a tremendous calumny since they accused
her of prostitution and said Jesus is the son of an adulteress may Allâh
damn them [Jews].
7- Their saying out of happiness and pride that they slew the Christ, Jesus
the son of Mary, peace be upon him, [not caring that] he is the messenger
of Allâh. And Allâh the Almighty has denied them in that by His saying:
“… and they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but it appeared so
unto them” or [they slew] another man thinking that he is him [Jesus], so
they killed him and crucified him, but Allâh the Almighty raised him
[Jesus] to Himself, and he [Jesus] is with Him in the sky …
But His saying: “and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in
doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
conjecture; they slew him not for certain” is Allâh the Almighty’s tidings
about another truth which is: in fact, those who surrounded the Christ’s
home [manzil al-masîḥ] and attacked him so they can arrest him in order to
kill him, those [attackers] disagreed with each other on if the man on
111 Abu Bakr Jâbir b. Mûsâ al-Jazâ’irî, Aysar al-Tafâsîr li Kalâm al-‘Alî al-Kabîr. 3
rd ed. 5 vols. Madinah
al-Munawwarah: Maktabat al-‘Ulûm wa al-Ḥukm, 1997, under 4:157, available online at
http://archive.org/details/aysar-attfaseer (consulted on Nov. 5th
2012).
CONCLUSION
306
whom the likeness of Jesus was casted is Jesus or he is someone else. They
did not achieve any certainty if the person that they arrested and brought
out [of Christ’ home], and crucified and killed is the Christ peace be upon
him [or not]. And this is why the Almighty said: “But Allâh took him up
unto Himself. Allâh was ever Mighty, Wise.”112
Like Ibn Kathîr’s work, Jazâ’irî’s tafsîr on 4:157 focuses on Jews and not on Christians.
Also, as does Ibn Kathîr, Jazâ’irî uses the opportunity to personally curse Jews. Jazâ’irî’s
above-mentioned explanations in number two and four clearly expand Allâh’s damnation
to all Jews contemporary to the Prophet Muḥammad and/or after him. In Jazâ’irî’s tafsîr
on 4:157, his choice of narrative is not obvious. It is not possible to know if Jazâ’irî’s
short mention of the likeness of Jesus being casted on someone else comes from Wahb’s
second narrative or if it comes from one of Ibn ‘Abbâs’ narratives, or if it comes from
another source. In his tafsîr on 3:55, Jazâ’irî identifies the crucified person and clarifies
that the likeness of Jesus was casted on the head of those officers who attacked Jesus’
house. Although, as in Ibn Isḥâq’s narrative in which Judas is mistakenly taken for Jesus,
here the miracle is not God’s blessing for one of Jesus’ companions, but God’s curse and
revenge for the crucified one; the narrative clearly is not a summary of Ibn Isḥâq’s
narrative, because the focal point of revenge is shifted from the betrayer to the executer.
Beside this major change in the elements of the story, many small signs in
Jazâ’irî’s narratives point to his having given birth to his own distorted version of the
crucifixion, having used the existing narratives on the crucifixion as his sources of
inspiration. Some of those points are: 1) in both Jazâ’irî’s narratives (in 4:157 and 3:55),
to refer to Jesus, he uses the term “Christ,” which is a popular way of referring to Jesus in
contemporary Arabic language. Despite the Qur’ânic use of “Christ” in 4:157, this title is
absent in the rhetoric of all concerned narratives of earlier Muslims. 2) In their staging of
the events before the crucifixion, all narratives talk about al-bayt (the house). In both
narratives of Jazâ’irî, this term is changed to manzil al-masîḥ (Christ’s home). 3) “To kill
and to crucify,” which is the Qur’ânic order of the terms/events respected by all
narratives, is switched to “to crucify and to kill” in Jazâ’irî’s narrative in 4:157. 4)
Expressions such as ṭawwaqû manzil al-masîḥ (surrounded Christ’s home) or yulqû
112 Ibid.
CONCLUSION
307
‘alayhi al-qabḍ (arrested him) are recent Arabic expressions, and cannot be found in any
of the early narratives on the crucifixion.
Jazâ’irî’s “guidance of the âyah” on 4:157 has an authoritative tone. It includes
Jazâ’irî’s convictions presented in short and definitive sentences under four numbers.
Like the previous two parts, no argument, analysis or critic is presented. Each and every
sentence sounds like an item of a legal declaration. His generalising and reductionist
approach uses the story of the crucifixion to draw a clear line putting “believers” on one
side, and “all Jews and all Christians of all times” together on the other side.113
In his
“guidance of the âyah,” he concludes:
Some of what this âyah guides to:
1- Explanation about Jews’ crimes.
2- Falsehood of the belief of Christians according to which Jesus was
crucified and killed, but [when it comes to] Jews, indeed although they did
not slay Jesus, they will be punished for their intention since they crucified
and killed whom they thought is Jesus peace be upon him.
3- Announcement of Jesus’ raise peace be upon him to the sky and his
descent at the end of time.
4- Like good faith, the repentance is neither beneficial, nor acceptable at
the meeting with the Angel of Death, and its existence is [not different
from] its inexistence.114
4.6 A New tafsîr of the Crucifixion of Jesus Based on the Theory of Double Messages
of the Qur’ân
When used as a hermeneutical tool to understand the meaning of an âyah, the theory of
double messages of the Qur’ân aims to find answers to three major questions: 1) under
what category the âyah must be read and understood: prophetic or messengeric?115
2) In
113 Ibid. This reductionist generalization about Christians and Jews can be abundantly found throughout
his tafsîr. From the very beginning of his tafsîr on first sûrah of the Qur’ân (Al-Fâtiḥa), Jazâ’irî interprets
“those who earn Thine anger” as Jews and “those who go astray” as Christians. Just a few âyahs before
4:157, he ends his tafsîr on 4:150-2 with:
[This âyah guides to] the trueness of Islamic religion and the falseness of Judaism and
Christianity, since [Allâh] the Almighty has promised Jews and Christians with the
despising torture [in the afterlife], and He has promised believers [in Islam] the full
reception of their rewards, as well as [Allâh’s] forgiveness and [His] blessings to them.
See ibid., under 1:7 and 4:150-2.
114
Ibid., under 4:157.
115
As explained in the second chapter of this thesis, the subdivision of the Qur’ânic âyahs into prophetic
and messengeric, is not a pure dichotomic concept giving us a black and white picture of the text. Some
CONCLUSION
308
each case, what are the hermeneutical consequences? 3) In its fifth layer of meaning,
what message or messages does the âyah try to send to its audiences, whether local or
global?
Finding answers to these three questions requires careful scholarly work and
meticulous study of the âyah in its different textual and historical contexts. As mentioned
in the second chapter of this thesis, in order to recognize prophetic âyahs from
messengeric ones, the scholar’s main tool remains twofold: 1) the textual analysis with an
emphasis on content analysis, looking for relationships between possibilities of the
message of the âyah with textual evidences and/or signs of either prophecy presented
within instances or messengerhood presented through concepts; and 2) the historico-
critical analysis that enables the researcher to find the level of interdependence between
historical realities as contexts of units of revelation (âyahs) and the message that each
given unit presents.
A quick review of 4:157 in the context of its sûrah reveals that 4:153-62 is a piece
of literature framed by 4:150-2 at one end, and 4:163-6 at the other end. âyahs before
4:150 are about hypocrites in Medina (4:138-49). They are filled with many imperative
verbs such as bashshir (bear unto [the hypocrites]), lâ taq‘udû (sit not [with the
hypocrites]), and lâ tattakhidhû (choose not [disbelievers]). They present a direct
conversation between Allâh and Muslims in “O you who believe” style. 4:149 is the last
âyah of this direct conversation. It reads: “If ye do good openly or keep it secret, or
forgive evil, lo! Allâh is ever Forgiving, Powerful.” 4:150-2 not only make a sudden shift
from direct conversation to the third person plural style, but also broaden the topic of the
conversation, and turn it into a declaration of faith announced to all humanity. 4:150-2
inform the humanity that the deniers of the messengers’ message will certainly be
punished, and the believers in that message will certainly be rewarded. They read:
م هۦ ويقولون ن ور قوا بين ٱلل هۦ ويريدون أن يفر ور ن ببعض ونڪفر إن ٱلذين يكفرون بٱلل
بيل ذوا بين تل ببعض ويريدون أن يتفرون حق ـو هم ٱلك ـو ا اأول هي ا م ذاب فرين ـو ك تدنا ل وأ
تيهم أ وف ي ـو م أول قوا بين أحد م هۦ ولم يفر ور ا جورهم وٱلذين ءاموا بٱلل فور ان ٱلل و
ا حيم ر
Qur’ânic âyahs might have elements of both categories. In those cases, the question is what aspect of the
âyah is dominant: its prophetic aspect or its messengeric aspect? Then, what are the hermeneutical
consequences of that dominance?
CONCLUSION
309
Lo! those who disbelieve in Allâh and His messengers, and seek to make
distinction between Allâh and His messengers, and say: We believe in
some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; Such
are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.
But those who believe in Allâh and His messengers and make no
distinction between any of them, unto them Allâh will give their wages;
and Allâh was ever Forgiving, Merciful.
Here, the term rusul (messengers) appears four times.116
The topic also is about the non-
distinctive nature of messengers’ mission. These three âyahs put an emphasis on the
timeless, contextless, and spaceless aspect of messengerhood. They seem to prepare their
audience for the next part, which will hold a messengeric message. At the other end,
4:163-6 clarify that what preceeded must be read as part of the qaṣaṣ of the messengers,
and understood as an example of stories that all point to the same unique truth. They
read:
ن من بعدهۦ ـ ما أوحيا إلىو نوح وٱلبي إبرتهيم وإ إنا أوحيا إلي ـو وأوحيا إلىو ح وإ عي ـو م
ن ـو يم رون و ـو ويونس وه يسىو وأيو باط و وٱل قد وءاتيا داو ويعقول ا ور ۥد زبور
ي لم نقصصهم ل ور من قب ي هم ـو م قصص م ٱلل رين و بش م
ل ا ر ىو تڪيم و
بعد ٱلرة حج ى ٱلل يشد بما أنزل ومذرين لئل يكون لاس كن ٱلل ـو ا ل ا حكيم زيز ان ٱلل و
مهۦ أنزله إلي ك ۥ بع ـو ا ة يشهدون وٱلم يد شفىو بٱلل و
Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as
We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and
Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted
unto David the Psalms; And messengers We have mentioned unto thee
before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allâh spake
directly unto Moses; Messengers of good cheer and of warning, in order
that mankind might have no argument against Allâh after the messengers.
Allâh was ever Mighty, Wise. But Allâh (Himself) testifieth concerning
that which He hath revealed unto thee; in His knowledge hath He revealed
it; and the Angels also testify. And Allâh is sufficient Witness.
Again, here the term rusul (messengers) appears four times.117
By juxtaposing narrated
stories with non-narrated stories of the messengers, all having the same raison d’être as
116 One of those four times is in the pronoun of hum in minhum in 4:152.
117
To name some of those men who received Allâh’s revelation, 4:163 uses the term nabiyyîn (the
prophets), but when no name is mentioned, the term rusul is used. This might support the theory of double
messages of the Qur’ân, suggesting that names represent human contexts and historical circomstances, so
nabî is someone who receives a timebound and contextbound message, but the message of rasûl is beyond
human contexts, and cannot and/or must not be presented by names, since these names point to precise men
lived at specific times and in specific places.
CONCLUSION
310
the “no argument” and submission aspect of human’s relationship to Allâh, 4:163-6
emphasize the function of those qaṣaṣ all leading to the same truth. The repetition of
anzala in the last âyah as a reference to Allâh’s revelation to the Prophet Muḥammad
also supports the hypothesis that, like the stories of all other messengers, the story of the
messenger Jesus narrated (qaṣṣaṣa)118
right before, was part of the inzâl side of the
Qur’ân; so it offers a messengeric message for all humanity. This dominant messengeric
atmosphere fills the rest of the sûrah. It is only at the very last âyah that the text switches
back to the prophetic mood, changes its rhetorical style, and terminates some legal issues
started in 4:127-30.
A comparison between Jesus’ tawaffâ in 4:157 and its previous appearance in
3:55 reveals the same messengeric frame. Again, here 3:55 is part of a piece of literature
presented in 3:33-57. It is not surprizing to know that like in 4:163-6, the âyah before
3:33 orders Muslims to submit themselves to Allâh and his messenger, and some âyahs
after 3:57 emphasize the qaṣaṣ nature of what preceeds. In fact, here the two last âyahs of
Jesus’ story are, in their contents, the repetitions of 4:150-2. The frame is the same
messengeric frame. The only differences are that, here, the places of the two ends are
switched in the text, and the ending frame overlaps with part of the story itself. In other
words, the emphasis on the obedience to Allâh comes before Jesus’ story, and the
consequences of believing or denying the universal message of the qaṣaṣ comes at the
end of the story. 3:32 reads:
ول وٱلر أطيعوا ٱلل فرين ق ـو ل يحب ٱلك إن تولوا إن ٱلل
Say: Obey Allâh and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allâh
loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
3:56-7 that provide the ending part of Allâh’s conversation to Jesus read:
صرين و ـو ن ن نيا وٱلخرة وما لهم م ا ى ٱلدا شديد ذاب بهم ذ فروا أ ا ٱلذين ا ٱلذين ءاموا أم أم
ت يو يهم ـو ح ـو موا ٱلص مين أجورهم و ـو ل يحب ٱلظ وٱلل
As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy
chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers.
118 Pickthall translates qaṣṣaṣa as “mentioned,” but since qaṣaṣ (narratives) derives from the same roots,
“narrated” seems to be a better translation for it.
CONCLUSION
311
And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their
wages in full. Allâh loveth not wrong-doers.
Then, 3:62 completes the frame. It states:
ذا لهو ٱلقصص ٱلح ـو إن ه ه إل ٱلل ـو لهو ٱلعزيز ٱلحكيم وما من إل وإن ٱلل
Lo! This verily is the true narrative[s] [qaṣaṣ]. There is no God save Allâh,
and lo! Allâh he verily, is the Mighty, the Wise.
Another important similarity between these two versions of Jesus’ tawaffâ is that
although many mufassirûn have read and interpreted 4:157 in an exclusive Jewish
context, the share of Christians in 4:157 is undeniable, and both versions of the story are
in fact narrated in a Christian context. In 3:55, Jesus’ end on earth is part of a narrative on
his miraculous conception, his life, his miracles, his preachings, and finally his end on
earth. In 4:157, Jesus’ tawaffâ and crucifixion are explained as examples for the crimes
that Jews committed, crimes that caused Allâh’s wrath against them. But a quick look at
the broader textual context of the narrative reveals that 4:153-62 are part of Allâh’s
argument to Christians warning them not to make the same mistakes that Jews did, and
bringing into question the historical evidences of their belief in the crucifixion. The
narrative starts with:
ٱلكت أه ماء يسـ ن ٱلس ا م ب ـو ت م ي ل ب أن تز ـو قالوا أرنا ٱلل بر من تل أ ىو ألوا مو قد
مهم عقة بظ ـو من بعد ما جاءتهم ٱلبي جهرة أخذتهم ٱلص ذوا ٱلعج ثم ٱت ن تل ت عفونا ـو وءاتيا
ا بي ا م ـو ط ىو مو
The People of the Scripture ask of thee that thou shouldst cause an (actual)
Book to descend upon them from heaven. They asked a greater thing of
Moses aforetime, for they said: Show us Allâh plainly. The storm of
lightning seized them for their wickedness. Then (even) after that) they
chose the calf (for worship) after clear proofs (of Allâh’s Sovereignty) had
come unto them. And We forgave them that! And We bestowed on Moses
evident authority.
This mistake of ahl al-kitâb requesting the Prophet to show them a miracle seems to
motivate the Qur’ân to mention some other mistakes that Jews made before. It is not clear
if those ahl al-kitâb who asked such a request were Jews, Christians, or some groups of
both. Ṭabarî mentions two possibilities: one considering only Jews as the interrogators
and the other considering both Jews and Christians as the interrogators. He supports each
CONCLUSION
312
possibility by citing aḥâdîth. At the end, he agrees with Abu Ja‘far and concludes that
maybe only Jews asked this request, but since they asked “a Book” and not “books,” they
might have asked it as a miracle that will be convincing not only for themselves, but also
for Christians. Qurṭubî, Suyûṭî and Ibn Kathîr keep silence about Christians having any
share, and state that those who made that request were Jews. They support their choice by
some aḥâdîth. Makkî mentions both possibilities and does not prefer one to the other.
Ṭabâṭabâ’î strongly refuses that Jews be the only interrogators. Instead of supporting his
preference by aḥâdîth, he supports it by a rational intratextual argument and writes:
“[Here] ahl al-kitâb are [both] Jews and Christians because this is the Qur’ân’s habitual
norm [and usage of the term] in [all other] similar instances. So [here] the interrogators
are the two groups of Jews and Christians and not only Jews.”
Another argument against the dominance of a Jewish context for 4:157 is that
according to all scholars both the third and the fourth sûrahs of the Qur’ân are Medinan
sûrahs, so 3:33-57 and 4:153-62 are both revealed in Medina. Also most scholars of the
Qur’ân, wether Muslim or not, are unanimous that the third sûrah is revealed before the
fourth one.119
According to most Muslim scholars, Sûrah Al-Aḥzâb is revealed between
these two sûrahs.120
This, on the one hand, increases the possibility of a timeless
message presented in 4:153-62 and, on the other, reduces the Jewish dominance of the
âyahs. If the âyahs on Jews’ crimes including their claim about Jesus’ crucifixion are
revealed after Muslims’ victory against Medinan Jews, knowing that no other conflict
between Jews and Muslims –not even a minor one– followed the battle of Aḥzâb, one can
conclude that 4:153-62 does not aim to excite or provoke Muslims against Jews, but it is
a post-war declaration targeting the adherents of Abrahamic faiths, inviting them to a
more peaceful and stable furure. Following âyahs after both narratives confirm this
function. As a matter of fact, both narratives are followed by many âyahs that each can be
119 There are debates among scholars on the exact place of these two sûrahs in the chronological order of
the Qur’ânic revelation, but there is almost a consensus on the fact that Sûrah Âli-‘Imrân is revealed before
Sûrah Al-Nisâ’. William Muir is among those few who claim that the third sûrah was revealed after the
fourth one. He calls his classification as “Approximate chronological order of the Suras,” and does not give
any explanation for his non-scientific personal choice. See William Muir, The Corân, Its Composition and
Teaching; and the Testimony It Bears to the Holy Scriptures. London: Wayman and Sons, 1858 (pp. 43-5).
120
Beside tafâsîr, see, for example, Mehdi Bâzargân, Bâzgasht beh Ghor’ân. 2 vols. Tehran: Sherkat-e
Sahâmy-e Enteshâr, 1389 Solar hijra (vol. 1, pp. 320-1; vol. 2, p. 510).
CONCLUSION
313
considered as an independent treaty of peace. Here are three examples for the first
narrative in Sûrah Âli-‘Imrân:
ول واء بيا وبيكم أل نعبد إل ٱلل ب تعالوا إلىو ڪمة ـو ٱلكت أه ـو ي ذ ق ا ول يت بهۦ شيـ نشر
ن دون ٱلل ا م ا أرباب وا بأنا مسمون إن تولوا قولوا ٱشهد بعضا بعض
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and
you: that we shall worship none but Allâh, and that we shall ascribe no
partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside
Allâh. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who
have surrendered (unto Him). (3:64)
ـو ويعقو ح وإ عي ـو م إبرتهيم وإ ىو يا وما أنزل وما أنزل ءاما بٱلل باط وما ق وٱل
هم ونحن له أوتى مو ق بين أحد م ب هم ل نفر يسىو وٱلبيون من ر ۥ مسمون ىو و
Say (O Muḥammad): We believe in Allâh and that which is revealed unto
us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and
Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus
and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of
them, and unto Him we have surrendered. (3:84)
واء ليسوا مة قا
ة ب أم ـو ٱلكت ن أه وٱليوم م مون بٱلل وهم يسجدون ي ءاناء ٱلي ت ٱلل ـو يتون ءاي
من ٱلص ٱل ـو وأول يرت ون ى ٱل ر ـو ن ٱلمكر ويس هون حين وما خر ويأمرون بٱلمعروف وي ـو
يم بٱلمتقين من خير ن يڪفروه يفعوا وٱلل
They [the People of the Book] believe in Allâh and the Last Day, and
enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie one with another in
good works. These are of the righteous. And whatever good they do, they
will not be denied the meed thereof. Allâh is Aware of those who ward off
(evil). (3:113-4)
The same invitation to a peaceful cohabitation between Muslims and the people of the
Book follows the second narrative. In fact, the last âyah of the narrative states:
وما أنزل من قب مون بما أنزل إلي مون ي م وٱلم م م ون ى ٱلع ت كن ٱلر ـو وٱلمقيمين ل
ة وو ٱلص ـو وٱليوم ٱلخر أولمون بٱلل ة وٱلم ڪوو تون ٱلز ا وٱلم ظيم ا م أجر تي
But those of them [the People of the Book] who are firm in knowledge and
the believers believe in that which is revealed unto thee, and that which
was revealed before thee, especially the diligent in prayer and those who
pay the poor-due, the believers in Allâh and the Last Day. Upon these We
shall bestow immense reward. (4:162)
CONCLUSION
314
A few âyahs later, in 4:170, the Qur’ân broadens its audience beyond adherents of
Abrahamic faiths, addresses all humanity, and encourages its audience to believe in the
message of the Messenger Muḥammad. It states:
ا لكم ب كم ـ اموا خير ول بٱلح من ر م ٱلر أيا ٱلاس قد جاء ـو ي وت ـو م ما ى ٱلس وإن تكفروا إن لل
ا وٱلرض ا حكيم يم ان ٱلل و
O mankind! The messenger hath come unto you with the Truth from your
Lord. Therefor believe; (it is) better for you. But if ye disbelieve, still, lo!
unto Allâh belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth. Allâh is
ever Knower, Wise.
This universal messengeric aspect has been emphasized in the last âyah of the concerned
post-war declaration. Before switching back to a legal issue in the last âyah of Sûrah Âli-
‘Imrân, the Qur’ân ends its declaration with an emphasis on the inzâl nature of
preceeding âyahs, inviting everyone once more to hold fast unto Allâh’s guidance
through His messengers. 4:175 reads:
ا ٱلذ ا أمبي ا م ب كم وأنزلا إليكم نور ن ر م
ن ـو م بره أيا ٱلاس قد جاء ـو تصموا ي وٱ بهۦ ين ءاموا بٱلل
ا ستقيم ا مم إليه صرتط دي وي ه وض سيدخهم ى رحمة م
O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We
have sent down [anzalnâ deriven from inzâl] unto you a clear light; As for
those who believe in Allâh, and hold fast unto Him, them He will cause to
enter into His mercy and grace, and will guide them unto Him by a straight
road.
But if these messengeric âyahs in both 3:33-57 and 4:153-62 are, before anything, parts
of Allâh’s call to mutual respect and peaceful cohabitation between the adherents of
Abrahamic faiths, then why do these narratives discuss points of disagreement and
conflict between Jews, Christians and Muslims? A careful reading of concerned âyahs
suggests that the Qur’ân presents three levels of reaction to the above-mentioned
conflictual issues:
First, issues that the Qur’ân denies at a human level. At this level, the Qur’ân
reacts angrily without providing theological arguments. For this level, the Qur’ân
mentions punishments in earthly life, as well as in the hereafter. Examples of this level
are numerous, and they are scattered throughout the Qur’ân, but in 4:153-62, they are all
CONCLUSION
315
mistakes/crimes committed by Jews. Some of them are: “breaking the covenant
[treaties],” “slaying the prophets [innocent people] wrongfully,” “speaking against Mary
[innocent people] a tremendous calumny,” “taking usury,” and “devouring people’s
wealth by false pretences.”
Second, issues that the Qur’ân denies at a theological level. At this level, the
Qur’ân’s tone is softer, and its rhetoric is less blaming. Here, the Qur’ân denies the issue,
and tries to provide theological arguments and intellectual discussions. The most
important example of this level is the question of the trinity. In both narratives, the
Qur’ân strongly denies the trinity, and supports its denial with explanations and
arguments. But to do so, it uses a more inviting tone than blaming or accusing. 4:171-2
ask:
ب ل تغوا ى ديڪم ول ت ـو ٱلڪت أه ـو إل ٱلح ي ى ٱلل ول قولوا يسى ٱبن مريم ر إنما ٱلمسيح
وڪمته ه ٱلل ها إلىو مريم وروح م و هۦ ۥ ألق ور ة ـ اموا بٱلل ـو ا لڪم ول تقولوا ث إنما ٱنتهوا خير
ه وتحد ـو إل ه ٱلل ـو بح وما ى ٱلرض له ۥ ولد ۥ أن يكون له وت ـو م ۥ ما ى ٱلس وڪيل فىو بٱلل لن و
كة ٱلم ـو ول ٱلم ا لل بد ٱلمسيح أن يكون بون يستك بادتهۦ ويستڪبر قر ن ومن يستك
ا سيحشرهم إليه جميع
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter
aught concerning Allâh save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,
was only a messenger of Allâh, and His word which He conveyed unto
Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allâh and His messengers, and
say not “Three” - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allâh is only One God. Far
is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son.
His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allâh is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave
[servant] unto Allâh, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His
service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Also 3:59-60 read:
ءادم م د ٱلل يسىو ثم قال له خقه إن م ن ۥ من ترا ل تكن م ب ن يكون ٱلح من ر ۥ
ٱلممترين
Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allâh is as the likeness of Adam. He created
him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is. (This is) the truth from
thy Lord (O Muḥammad), so be not thou of those who waver.
Third, issues that the Qur’ân denies at a historical level. The crucifixion belongs to this
category. As a matter of fact, the Qur’ân does not seem to discuss or deny the crucifixion
CONCLUSION
316
as a theological issue. As Lawson mentions it at the very beginning of his book, Jesus’
crucifixion appears only once in the Qur’ân.121
But issues related to his divine nature
and/or his relationship to God are discussed several times throughout the Qur’ân. In all
those instances, the Qur’ân keeps a blaming, but reconciling and soft tone. In the âyahs
on Jesus’ tawaffâ and his crucifixion, that blaming tone is absent. Instead, the Qur’ân
uses a neutral authoritative tone. The Qur’ân’s position vis-à-vis the crucifixion and its
opinion on what exactly happened to Jesus on his last day on earth can be compared to
another event belonging to the same historical category: the Seven Sleepers. In the case
of the Seven Sleepers, the Qur’ân puts its finger on the debate over their number. 18:22 is
the Qur’ân’s final answer to that debate. It treads:
ا بٱلغيب بم رجم م اد بهم ويقولون خمسة ابعهم ر
ة ـو يقولون ث وثامم بعة ويقولون
بم ڪ ا يعمهم إل قي م م ت م بعد ب ى أ هم ل تمار ي ق ر ا ول تستفت يهم م هر ـو م إل مراء ظ
ا أحد
(Some) will say: They [the Sleepers] were three, their dog the fourth, and
(some) say: Five, their dog the sixth, guessing at random; and (some) say:
Seven, and their dog the eighth. Say (O Muḥammad): My Lord is best
aware of their number. None knoweth them save a few. So contend not
concerning them except with an outward contending, and ask not any of
them to pronounce concerning them.
It is clear that here the Qur’ân does not want to give a definitive answer to the question.
On the contrary, it seems that by keeping it ambiguous, the Qur’ân tries to reroute the
attention of its audience from the subject of debate to the all-knowing aspect of Allâh.
The Qur’ân’s reaction to the event of the crucifixion is similar. It is like it tries to
say: “Allâh knows and you do not know! So do not try to know something that Allâh will
only reveal on the day of judgment!” It is therefore sad to realize that mufassirûn were
121 Another direct Qur’ânic reference to Jesus’ tawaffâ, with no mention of a crucifixion, can be read in
3:55, and both Lawson and Robinson study it their works. However, any research on Jesus’ possible death
presented in 4:157 or in 3:55 will be incomplete without at least mentioning the two important articles of
Heribert Busse on these two âyahs. In his most recent article published in 2001, Busse focuses on 4:157,
and in his older article published in 1998, he studies some Muslim exegetical works on 3:55. I do not use
Busse’s articles in this thesis, since I found them (thanks to Professor Christian Raschle) once I had already
submitted and defended my dissertation, but they are worthy of consideration especially for someone using
German references on Jesus’ death in the Qur’ân. See Heribert Busse, “Jesu Errettung vom Kreuz in der
islamischen Koranexegese von Sure 4:157.” Oriens, vol. 36 (2001): 160-95. Then, See Heribert Busse,
“Der Tod Jesu in der Darstellung des Korans, Sure 3:55, und die islamische Koranexegese.” Studia
Orientalia Christiana – Collectanea, vol. 31 (1998): 35-76.
CONCLUSION
317
not able to see this clear and simple message in the âyahs on Jesus’ tawaffâ and
crucifixion. It is also sad to see how these experts of the Qur’ânic text naively copied, one
from the other, stories that in most cases sound like tales of the Thousand and One
Nights. With a few rare exceptions, they could not see any irony in those tales. Indeed,
Ṭabâṭabâ’î is one such exception; he cleverly avoids those stories, and tries to replace
them by rational and textual arguments. Throughout his tafsîr on 4:157, he wisely uses
every opportunity to repeat: “Allâh knows better.”
My textual supports for this hypothesis of “no one knows but Allâh” as the
Qur’ân’s final answer to the question of the crucifixion can be classified under two
categories: 1) textual supports external to the concerned narratives and 2) those internal
to the narratives. The external textual supports are numerous. Above, I gave the example
of the Seven Sleepers. Followings are more examples, all of them exclusively about
debates between Jews and Christians or among the adherents of all three Abrahamic
faiths:
ىو شىء وهم رىو ليست ٱليهود ـو ىو شىء وقالت ٱلص رىو ـو يتون وقالت ٱليهود ليست ٱلص
ب ـو قولهم ٱلكت قال ٱلذين ل يعمون م ذتل ـو يحكم بيهم يوم ٱلقي تفون ٱلل انوا يه ي مة يما
And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians
say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture.
Even thus speak those who know not. Allâh will judge between them on
the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ. (2:113)
يه بما أنزل ٱلل نجي ٱل وليحكم أه سقون وأنزلا إلي ـو هم ٱلف ـو أول ومن لم يحڪم بما أنزل ٱلل
ب ب ـو يه ٱلكت ب ومهيما ـو ا ل ما بين يديه من ٱلڪتق ٱلح مصد ول تتبع ٱحڪم بيهم بما أنزل ٱلل
من ٱلح ا جاء م ا أهواءهم هاج ومة ا مكم شر جع
وتحدة ولو شا لكة لجعڪم أم ء ٱلل
كم و م ى ما ءات كن ل يبو ـو ول يرت تبقوا ٱل تفون ٱ تم يه ت ا يب ئكم بما مرجعڪم جميع إلى ٱلل
[Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light … And We
caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps …] Let the People
of the Gospel judge by that which Allâh hath revealed therein. Whoso
judgeth not by that which Allâh hath revealed: such are evil-livers. And
unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming
whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between
them by that which Allâh hath revealed, and follow not their desires away
from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a
divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allâh willed He could have made
you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given
CONCLUSION
318
you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works.
Unto Allâh ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein
ye differ. (5:47-8)
ى ٱلذين ٱختفوا يه بت ٱلس تفون إنما جع مة يما ڪانوا يه ي ـو ليحكم بيم يوم ٱلقي وإن رب
The Sabbath was appointed only for those who differed concerning it, and
lo! thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection
concerning that wherein they used to differ. (16:124)
An important piece that completes the puzzle of these unresolved debates, and gives
some information about their ontological aspect can be read in 16:92-3. They state:
كم دخل بيكم ـو ذون أيم ا تت ـو ة أنڪ زلها من بعد قو ٱلتى نقضت ة هى ول تكونوا أن تكون أم
ة بهۦ أربىو من أم مة إنما يبوڪم ٱلل ـو ن لكم يوم ٱلقي لجعڪم وليبي تفون ولو شاء ٱلل تم يه ت ما
من يشاء ويهدى من يشاء كن يض ـو ول وتحدة
ة تم تعمون أم ا م ولتسـ ن
And be not like unto her who unravelleth the thread, after she hath made it
strong, to thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you because
of a nation being more numerous than (another) nation. Allâh only trieth
you thereby, and He verily will explain to you on the Day of Resurrection
that wherein ye differed. Had Allâh willed He could have made you (all)
one nation, but He sendeth whom He will astray and guideth whom He
will, and ye will indeed be asked of what ye used to do. (16:92-3)
The Qur’ân is crystal clear about the fact that, from the very beginning, Allâh had the
plan of causing some differences and disagreements among humans. He had also decided
from the very beginning that those disagreements would be solved only by Himself on
the day of judgment. This latter âyah and 5:48 (mentioned among my external textual
examples) are the only two Qur’ânic instances where Allâh’s judgment on the day of
judgment about disagreements among humans is absent. In these two cases, the
expression of “He will judge between you/them” is replaced by “He will explain to you.”
On the one hand, this suggests that the Qur’ân believes in a level of disagreement that
must not necessarily lead to conflicts and inhuman actions among humans, and
encourages its readers to live accordingly. On the other, the only other Qur’ânic usage of
this expression (being about Jews, Christians, and Muslims in 5:48) supports that, to the
Qur’ân, part of the disagreements between these three faiths/nations must not lead to
inhuman actions and conflicts. I believe that the crucifixion belongs to this category. In
other words, the Qur’ân wants and insists that the truth about the crucifixion should
CONCLUSION
319
remain unrevealed, and that Muslims should not try to find a definitive image of what
happened on the cross.
3:55 narrates a conversation between Allâh and Jesus during which Allâh informs
Jesus of His plan causing Jesus to tawaffâ and raising him up to Himself. The âyah
continues: “I … am setting those who follow thee [Jesus] above those who disbelieve
until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge
between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.” This means that to the Qur’ân, whether
before or right at the moment of Jesus’ tawaffâ, some unjust actions between Jews and
Jesus/Christians happened. Also, the Qur’ân does not deny the happening of a crucifixion
in the name of Jesus. There are enough textual internal evidences to accept that the
Qur’ân does not want to go further and explain more. Right after this conversation
between Allâh and Jesus, the text cuts the narrative, and without mentioning a word about
Jesus’ reaction, moves on to saying: “This (which) We recite unto thee is a revelation and
a wise reminder.”(3:58). The same kind of cut happens in the middle of the conversation
between Mary and the Angels within the story of Mary’s annunciation. Here the Qur’ân
cuts the conversation to announce:
باء ٱلغيب نوحيه إلي من أن مريم وما ڪت لديهم تل مهم أيهم يكف ـو قون أق ت لديهم إ ي وما
تصمون إ ي
This is of the tidings of things hidden. We reveal it unto thee
(Muḥammad). Thou wast not present with them when they threw their
pens (to know) which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor wast
thou present with them when they quarrelled (thereupon).
This emphasis on “you were not there, and you do not know” is also true about the
crucifixion. Part of 4:157 reads: “and lo! those who disagree concerning it [the
crucifixion] are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
conjecture.” This sentence makes a cut between “And because of their saying: We slew
the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allâh’s messenger –and they slew him not, and they
crucified him not, but it appeared so unto them” and “They slew him not for certain.”122
122 Ṭabarî interprets this last sentence as: “They did not slay Jesus with certainty.” Some mufassirûn such
as Qurṭubî and Bayḍâwî follow him, and some others such as Zamakhsharî, Râzî, and Ṭabâṭabâ’î discuss
other possibilities including the certain negation of Jesus’ murder by Allâh. Pickthall’s translation reflects
only this last possibility.
CONCLUSION
320
As shown in this chapter, the main concern of most mufassirûn has been to find a
story –with or without miraculous nature – to interpret the parts before and after this key
sentence. Most of them have interpreted this sentence as a proof for either a miracle or a
human mistake made by those who crucified Jesus. But if this is a messengeric âyah
addressed to all humanity, on a disagreement among members of a continuing humanity
till the end of time, then “those who disagree concerning it” and “are in doubt thereof”
are not only the crucifiers of Jesus, but all humans thereafter. So, from this perspective,
this âyah is addressed primarily to all Jews, Christians, and Muslims who, throughout
their history, have disagreed on the crucifixion of Jesus. In other words, this âyah is also
addressed to us today, as well as to our children and generations to come. The
misinterpretation of this key sentence has led mufassirûn to put all their efforts on the
interpretation of “not” and “nor” in a sentence where these two elements do not exist in
Arabic. A more accurate translation for the concerned part of 4:157 is: “and they slew
him not, and they crucified him not” (my literal translation). Accepting the spirit of the
speech, or its fifth layer of meaning as being hidden behind the intention of the speaker to
keep his story as ambiguous as it sounds, enables the hermeneute to see alternative
possibilities for the meaning of this âyah in the two pronouns of hu (him) of the sentence.
The question then becomes: what exactly these two hu refer to? An effort to find
an answer to this question leads to further questions. Some of them are: Who was not
killed? Who was not crucified? Does the two hu refer to the same thing/person? If so, do
they refer to Jesus, to his body, to Allâh’s Word (a reference to Jesus in 3:45 and 4:171),
or to something that must be found outside the narratives such as “a spirit from Allâh”
which is a Qur’ânic reference to Jesus in 21:91 and 66:12? Why the Qur’ân plants the
seed of doubt in the minds of its readers, and does not solve the problem once and for
ever as it comfortably does it about the divine nature of Jesus? Why in the Qur’ân’s
report of a crucifixion, the act of murder (to kill) comes before the act of crucifixion?
Also, are there any aḥâdîth in which the Prophet clearly denies Jesus’ crucifixion? If so,
why is there no mention of them in the tafâsîr? If not so, why the Prophet did not clearly
deny Jesus’ crucifixion, as he did so about the divine nature of Jesus?
Submitting onself to the will of the Qur’ân, and accepting that its intention is to
keep the above-mentioned questions about the crucifixion unanswered leads to some
CONCLUSION
321
more important philosophical questions: What is harmful in having different beliefs and
practices, and living together not knowing the truth about something, in this case Jesus’
crucifixion? In a human society, where are the borders between, on the one hand, vexing
differences and intolerable disagreements and, on the other hand, acceptable differences
and admissible disagreements?
The Qur’ân’s classification of issues under three levels of human, theological and
historical can be applied to the question of disagreements among humans. Consequently,
according to the Qur’ân, any inhuman belief and opinion such as racism, chauvinism, or
hedonism will be intolerable and condemned both to earthly and eternal punishments. At
the theological level, the Qur’ân keeps silence about most theological debates and
differences of its era. Many faiths such as Buddhism and Hinduism are not mentioned at
all. Some religious groups considered by the Qur’ân as rooted in God, such as
Zoroastrians and Sabeans, are just mentioned by name with no further explanation (2:62;
5:69; 22:17). Besides polytheist Bedouins, and a few ḥanîf people, Jews and Christians
are the only groups of “religious” people whose beliefs are discussed and challenged by
the Qur’ân. But even here, the Qur’ân does not show any awareness about and/or interest
in discussing important theological debates and differences within Judaism or
Christianity. For example, the Qur’ân is completely silent about important Christian
theological debates that split early Christianity into the monophysites and the diophysites.
At this level, the Qur’ân challenges a few beliefs and practices of the above-mentioned
groups, but exclusively considers one belief as “absolutely unforgivable,” which is
believing in partners for Allâh. 4:116 clearly states:
لمن يشاء بهۦ ويغفر ما دون تل ل يغفر أن يشر ا إن ٱلل ل بعيد ـو قد بٱلل ومن يشر
Lo! Allâh pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto Him. He
pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto
Allâh hath wandered far astray.
In all theological cases other than shirk (believing in partner(s) for Allâh), the Qur’ân
uses a soft tone and invites its audience to submit themselves to the truth. At the
historical level, the Qur’ân’s tone and rhetoric are always authoritative and convincing. In
CONCLUSION
322
most cases, the Qur’ân gives a clear image of the event with incredible details.123
Most
Qur’ânic narratives include direct citations of conversations among the characters of the
narrative. Those direct citations solidify the Qur’ân’s authoritative rhetoric. However,
there are some exceptions. The two most ambiguous Qur’ânic narratives are those of
Adam and Jesus. In both cases, the chronology of events is not clear. In both cases, the
duration of many scenes and events are also left untold. Considering the Qur’ân’s
articulated and detailed narrative style, one must admit that in the case of Adam and
Jesus, the Qur’ân purposely leaves the story incomplete. In the case of Jesus, the
ambiguity starts from the very beginning with Jesus’ conception. In the annunciation
scene, the Angel’s answer to the terrified Mary who asks: “My Lord! How can I have a
child when no mortal hath touched me?” is only one word: kadhâlik (“so it is” or “like
this”). Throughout the narrative, readers find themselves in front of similar ambiguous
situations several times, and Jesus’ tawaffâ and his crucifixion are two of many
examples. There is no way for curious readers to discover answers to many questions:
What is the lenghth of time between when God informs Jesus about God’s decision to
raise Jesus to Himself and the time that this ascension happens? What is Jesus’ reaction
to this news? How long the act of ascension lasts? Is it a bodily ascension or a spiritual
one? Is it visible for those who are around or not? If so, what are their reactions? These
questions and many others of the same kind motivated story tellers such as Wahb to fill
the gaps in the Qur’ân’s narrative on the crucifixion. These narratives fly in the face of
the Qur’ân’s own intention, announced within the same narrative, that “Why then argue
ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge? Allâh knoweth. Ye know not.”124
We do not know Wahb’s sources of information, but one thing is certain: his story
and other stories on the crucifixion greatly contributed to Muslims’ perception of
Christianity, and enormousely helped invading Muslims shape their relationship with
conquered Christians. One might not be able to find what is harmful in not knowing the
truth about Jesus’ crucifixion, but it is easy to find what was useful about the decisive
denial of Jesus’ crucifixion. Asma Afsaruddin writes:
Textual hermeneutics is contingent to a certain extent on the reader’s
123 To read a par excellence example of those detailed narratives, see Sûrah Yûsuf (Chapter 12).
124
Part of 3:66.
CONCLUSION
323
individual circumstances, including personal, intellectual, and ideological
proclivities, as well as the specific social and political circumstances in
which the reader is located. These two strains reveal to us the complex
ways in which Muslims related to non-Muslims in changing historical and
sociopolitical circumstances, the details of which we cannot fully explore
at this time. In view of our survey, it is safe to conclude, however, that
such trends reveal that sometime after the second/eighth century, the
religio-communal consciousness of Muslims qua Muslims became more
entrenched, and confessional boundaries became more sharply
demarcated, particularly in times of sociopolitical turmoil. Early inclusive
views of Jews and Christians as recorded in early exegetical works began
to be undermined and eroded to a certain extent (but never completely
eliminated) in such changing circumstances. Exclusivist readings of the
Qur’an appear to have become predominant particularly during the height
of the Mamluk period, as exemplified by Ibn Kathir and al-Baydawi, for
example, which allows us to speculate that the fraught sociopolitical
conditions in the Islamic world at this time—in the aftermath of the
Crusades and the Mongol onslaught—facilitated such illiberal views. The
rise of a more trenchant religio-communal consciousness in the face of
threats, perceived or otherwise, to a community’s well-being often leads to
a greater emphasis on distinctive doctrines which set one apart from
others, with a corresponding diminished focus on praxis or ethics which
may reveal commonalities… One may mention in this context the
principle of naskh or supersession/abrogation that became invoked by
jurists and theologians as a legal and hermeneutic stratagem to frequently
privilege less-tolerant interpretations of the Qur’an vis-à-vis the People of
the Book from after the second century of Islam—an important
manifestation of shifting sociological and ideological currents which need
to be better studied but are currently beyond the purview of this article.125
The crucifixion of Jesus is among the main subjects that contributed to the formation of
“the religio-communal consciousness of Muslims” to which Afsaruddin refers. In fact, as
Sidney H. Griffith explains in his article entitled Jews and Muslims in Christian Syriac
and Arabic Texts of the Ninth Century, the crucifixion was not only one of the main
subjects of theological debates between Muslim scholars and Christian erudites, but also
a bone in the injured relationship of ordinary Muslims and Christians, and a major point
of conflict in their practices and rituals all inherited from Judaism.126
Griffith writes:
125 Asma Afsaruddin, “The Hermeneutics of Inter-Faith Relations: Retrieving Moderation and Pluralism
as Universal Principles in Qur’anic Exegeses.” Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 37, issue 2 (May 2009):
331-54 (p. 351).
126
Down the centuries and on the high scholarly level, many discussions and debates have happened
between Muslim erudites and Christian theologians. Most of these descussions were in written form, and
CONCLUSION
324
The cross as a topic of controversy between Christians and Jews, as
distinct from the event of the crucifixion itself, appeared only in the
seventh century, and then was bracketed with the icons. … It became a
standard topic of controversy in the second major period of the Christian
production of tracts, Adversus Judaeos, after the Persian conquests of the
early seventh century. The debate was still going on when the Muslims
arrived on the scene, and continued thereafter as both the Christians and
the Jews adjusted themselves to their new status as protected “Scripture
people,” in return for their payment of a poll tax and their agreement to
adopt a low social profile, as required by the Qur’ân in at-Tawbah 9:29.127
We do not know to what extent the Qur’ân is aware of that conflict between Jews and
Christians, but it cleverly intends to turn the debate on the crucifixion to an example of a
tolerable difference aiming to teach Muslims how to cohabite with others, and not being
engaged in endless and unuseful discussions. Meanwhile, it seems that a few converts
from Judaism to Islam, including Wahb ibn Munabbih, Ka‘b al-Aḥbâr, and ‘Abdullâh ibn
Salâm, brought with themselves their cultural baggage and continued their unresolved
dispute with their old Christian enemy, this time using a new sharp weapon: tafsîr.128
Because of the socio-political circomstances, the result was almost immediate. The
efforts of Wahb and other story tellers bear their bitter fruits throughout the history of
Muslim-Christian interfaith relations. In every era of Islamic history, and parallel to the
socio-political circomstances of the time, mostly in conquered Christian territories, beside
all other disagreements, the issues surrounding the question of Jesus’ crucifixion and
death on the cross added to the tension and fed the conflict between Muslims and
Christians.129
Examples of such function of the crucifixion are numerous, and what
many of them survived to our days. However on both sides, most often these discussions were an ensemble
of theological debates, popular beliefs, unproven convictions, and rational arguments. For an example of
these debates see Rifaat Ebeid and David Thomas eds., Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades:
The Letter from the People of Cyprus and Ibn Abî Ṭâlib al-Dimashqî’s Response. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill,
2005.
127
Sidney H. Griffith, “Jews and Muslims in Christian Syriac and Arabic Texts of the Ninth Century.”
Jewish History, vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 1988): 65-94 (pp. 77-8).
128
Ibn ‘Abbâs is the only first narrator of one of the narratives on the crucifixion who is a Muslim non-
convert from Judaism, but he starts his narrative whith kâna min al-khabar al-yahûd (It was among the
news on Jews), so his source must clearly be an unkown Jewish source.
129
Some Muslim erudites went even further than the narratives, and tried to support the denial of
Jesus’crucifixion by rational arguments.For example in his letter to the people of Cyprus, Ibn abi Ṭâlib al-
Dimashqî argues:
CONCLUSION
325
Yehoshua Frenkel reports is just one of them. He writes:
The Muslim writers who recounted the story of the war between Islam and
the Franks told of the crucifix in the enemy’s camp and noted its
importance to Christian believers, though stressing to their audience the
meaninglessness of this relic. Such is the case in the narratives depicting
the siege of the summer of 1148. Outside the city walls, and in contrast to
the Islamic ritual, a Christian ceremony took place in the Franks’ camp,
with the crucifix prominently displayed. The Crusaders gathered round the
holy standard they so adored. However, this picture is found only in the
Arabic sources, not the Christian ones. Two verses by contemporary poets
illuminate the symbolic role of the Cross. Al-QaysaranI declares in a poem
(qasida): “You (Nur al-Dîn) have beaten their leader in his forehead, the
dead hardened heart was taken away from the battleground and with this
the cross was lowered”. Ibn Munîr sang in one of his verses: “In its most
hardened stick the cross was beaten”. By depicting this picture it seems
that the Muslim writers intended to generate antagonism between the two
sides. By delineating a scene of combat between the Qur’ân and the Cross
they constructed a confrontation between two symbols. The Qur’ân stands
as the sign of monotheism while the Cross is represented as the emblem of
polytheism, of the Trinity. This narration can be coined “a rhetoric of
otherness”130
4.7 Re-understanding Jesus’ tawaffâ Through theTheory of Humans’ Tripartite
Nature
Accepting that the ambiguity of Jesus’ crucifixion in 4:157 is one of the pedagogical
tools of the Qur’ân for the promotion of tolerance and respect between Muslims and the
People of the Book, one might ask how far a hermeneute can go in understanding the
Qur’ân’s revelation of what happened to Jesus on his last day on earth. As confirmed by
all mufassirûn, the answer to this question must be found in innî mutawaffika wa râfi‘ûka
ilayya (I am gathering thee [causing you to tawaffâ] and causing thee to ascend unto Me)
whithin 3:55. I suggest that what relates the two Qur’ânic versions of Jesus’ last day to
Jesus was the greatest erudite of his era in Torah …, and the best speaker among his
people …, and he had the most charismatic personality. … [Knowing that he had all these
powers] how come that the crucified one was so silent? Indeed if Jesus was crucified, he
would have used the opportunity of being on the cross to talk to the Jews, to teach them
the truth, and to defend himself…
See Rifaat Ebeid and David Thomas eds., Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades: The Letter from
the People of Cyprus and Ibn Abî Ṭâlib al-Dimashqî’s Response. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005 (p. 208).
130
Yehoshua Frenkel, “The Qur’ân Versus the Cross in the Wake of the Crusade: The Social Function of
Dreams and Symbols in Encounter and Conflict (Damascus, July 1148).” Quaderni di Studi Arabi, vol.
20/21 (2002-2003): 105-132 (pp. 115-6).
CONCLUSION
326
each other is the literal technique of pun between 3:55 and 4:157. In other words,
mutawaffika (causing you to tawaffâ) is the Qur’ân’s alternative for mâ qatalûhu (they
slew him not), and râfi‘uka ilayya (raising you to myself) is the Qur’ân’s alternative for
mâ salabuhu (they crucified him not). The Qur’ânic image of Jesus’ last day on earth is
as miraculous and unusual as his conception, his birth, and his speaking to Jews while
still being in the cradle.
Having the theory of humans’ tripartite nature in hand, it is certain that to the
Qur’ân, sometime within the last day of Jesus’ life, his nafs is separated from his jasad
and rûḥ. The Qur’ân does not mention if later his nafs joins his jasad and rûḥ or not.131
Those narratives that mention that Allâh caused Jesus to sleep for three or seven hours
and raised him to the sky in that state of sleep indirectly confirm the fast reunion of
Jesus’ components in the sky, but the Qur’ân keeps silence about it. This silence suggests
that instead of the physical characteristics of Jesus’ crucifixion/death, the Qur’ân is more
interested in the spiritual aspect of what happened to Jesus. This spiritual aspect is
emphasized by wa muṭahhiruka min al-ladhîna kafarû (and am cleansing thee of those
who disbelieve), a purification that follows Jesus’ ascension to Allâh.
The Qur’ân clearly denies any death in the past for Jesus, but his death in the
future is part of the Qur’ânic apocalypse, and is discussed in 4:159. It reads:
موتهۦ من بهۦ قب ب إل لي ـو ٱلكت ن أه ا وإن م يد م ش ي مة يكون ـو ويوم ٱلقي
There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him
before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness
against them.
As all other âyahs about Jesus, this one also has been the subject of many debates among
mufassirûn. Again, like in 4:157, the question here is what the two hu (him) in the âyah
131 This non-mortal aspect of tawaffâ is not a new suggestion. In fact, some mufassirûn prior to Ṭabarî put
an emphasis on the non-mortal nature of tawaffâ, but they do not explain why and how tawaffâ is different
from death. For example, Abu Muḥammad ‘Abdullâh b. Muslim al-Dinwarî (213-276H) in his tafsîr on
3:55 defines mutawaffika as: qâbiḍuka min al-arḍi bi ghayri mawt (taking you from earth in a way other
than death). It seems that Ṭabarî’s incomparable authority in tafsîr, and his indiference about such
definitions convinces those mufassirûn who come after him not to include these definitions in their
possibilities of meaning for tawaffâ. See Abu Muḥammad ‘Abdullâh b. Muslim al-Dinwarî, Ta’wîl Gharîb
al-Qur’ân. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1978, under 3:55, available online at
http://sh.rewayat2.com/olomquran/Web/23621/001.htm (consulted on Nov. 23rd
2012).
CONCLUSION
327
refer to. For the meaning of the âyah, four possibilities have been discussed: first, the
âyah means: “There is not one of the People of the Book but will believe in Jesus before
Jesus’ death ….” Second, it means: “There is not one of the People of the Book but will
believe in Jesus before his own death ….”132
Third, it means: “There is not one of the
People of the Book but will believe in the Prophet Muḥammad before Jesus’ death ….”
Fourth, it means: “There is not one of the People of the Book but will believe in the
Prophet Muḥammad before his own death ….” A few mufassirûn, such as Jazâ’irî,
consider this last possibility to be the meaning of the âyah.133
However, Ṭabarî strongly
criticizes it and warns about the unacceptable legal consequences of such meaning. He
argues that accepting this meaning opens the door for recognizing deceased dhimmîs as
Muslims, and seizing their wealth and preventing their children from inheriting from
them because at the very last second of his life, the deceased has become a Muslim and
does not belong anymore to his previous millah (nation).134
Like Ṭabarî, Ṭabâṭabâ’î
refuses this last possibility with a rational argument and says that, as all other Qur’ânic
instances, 4:159 must be read and understood in its textual context. Since 4:159 is part of
a narrative on Jesus, nothing in it, including the first hu, can refer to the Prophet
Muḥammad who is out of context here. In addition, from a Qur’ânic perspective,
believing in Jesus is believing in Muḥammad and vice versa, so here there is no need to
bring the Prophet Muḥammad into the picture to emphasize the trueness of people’ faith.
Both Ṭabarî and Ṭabâṭabâ’î believe that in 4:159 both hu refer to Jesus himself, and that
this âyah is a statement about the return of Jesus on earth at the end of time.
132 Ṭabarî cites some early exegetes who have claimed that the first hu refers to the Prophet Muḥammad,
so the âyah means one of the two followings: “There is not one of the People of the Book but will believe
in the Prophet Muḥammad before Jesus’ death ….” Or “There is not one of the People of the Book but will
believe in the Prophet Muḥammad before his own death ….”
133
Ibn ‘Abbâs seems to be the first early mufassir who suggests that the second hu refers to every person
among the People of the Book. Mujâhid b. Jabr al-Makhzûmî (d. 104H) cites him explaining that every one
of the People of the Book will believe in Jesus before the death of that person even if his death happens as
fast as turdâ (being fallen from a high place) or tughraq (being sank in the water). A few mufassirûn such
as Muqâtil ibn Sulaymân (d. 150H) follow Mujâhid, but most others such as Zamakhsharî, Tha‘labî,
Suyûṭî, and Qurṭubî mention all possibilities withought clearly preferring one to the others. Also a fifth
possibility considering the first hu as a reference to Allâh is mentioned by some mufassirûn such as
Qurṭubî.
134
Ibn Kathîr criticizes this argument and says since the imân (faith) of the deceased person is not
accepted, he cannot be considered as a Muslim. Ibn Kathîr prefers the third possibility and writes 15 pages,
and includes many aḥâdîth to support his preference.
CONCLUSION
328
Accepting the preference of Ṭabarî and Ṭabâṭabâ’î necessarily means that 4:159
informs Muslims about the future mawt of Jesus sometime at the end of time. The Qur’ân
clearly states that righteous people do not experience mawt more than once. 44:56 states:
“They [the righteous or pious people] taste not death therein [in the heavens], save the
first death [on earth]. And He [Allâh] hath saved them from the doom of hell.” So if
4:159 reveals Jesus’ mawt at the end of time, then his tawaffâ, as some have translated
and interpreted it, does not refer to his death, but to a sate of separation between his soul
and his body, a state that could have appeared to those who witnessed it as qatl which, as
explained in chapter three of this thesis, is an alternative for mawt. It seems that by using
tawaffâ for Jesus, the Qur’ân purposely makes a strong statement about the return of
Jesus at the end of time. To the Qur’ân, the most important distinctive aspect of what
happened to Jesus in 4:157 is the possible-return aspect of his tawaffâ versus the no-
return aspect of qatl claimed by the Jews. Once read through the lenses of the theory of
humans’ tripartite nature, 4:157 can mean that the crucifiers could not cause Jesus to have
a no-return death, and were not able to separate his rûḥ from his jasad by crucifying him.
So Allâh took his nafs and, despite the non-alive appearance of his jasad, He preserved it
from decomposition by keeping his rûḥ in it. He then raised him unto Himself, and He
will send him back to earth at the end of time.
As discussed in the third chapter of this thesis, tawaffâ has all the characteristics
and appearances of death, except that it therefore leaves a possibility for a return.
Knowing that, a simple question that no mufassir seems to have asked remains: If we
think of shubbiha lahum (it appeared so unto them) as referring to the qatl of Jesus
instead of to his crucifixion, is not then the use of tawaffâ meaning a death-like state with
the possibility of a return, together with the mention of Jesus’ final and definitive mawt at
the end of time, a logical possibility?
This interpretation opens a new understanding of the Qur’ân’s image about what
happened to Jesus on his last day of life on earth. This particular interpretation has been
ignored for centuries because of the powerful influences of dominant narratives that,
despite all criticism around their narrators, have played an undeniable role in shaping the
limits of mufassirûn’s understanding of the Qur’ân, even for those exceptional
mufassirûn who did not consider those narratives as credible sources.
CONCLUSION
329
Conclusion
The nature of Jesus has always been a sensitive and important issue in the history of
Muslim-Christian relations in general, and dialogue in particular. This issue becomes
more challenging when one discovers that, on both sides of the dialogue, there is a long
history of internal debates and disagreements about Jesus’ nature, life, and death. On the
Muslim side, since the Qur’ân is very clear in its denial of any divinity shared between
God and his creatures, including Jesus, most debates simply focus on the questions
surrounding Jesus’ life and death. Among those debates, the crucifixion of Jesus is
probably the hardest bone to pick. Despite the ambiguity of Muslim sources (both the
Qur’ân and the Ḥadîth) about Jesus’ crucifixion, and the considerable amount of recorded
discussions among Muslim erudites on the subject matter down the centuries, the
common position of devout Muslims has almost always been the strong denial of Jesus’
crucifixion and death. As a proof for their conviction, Muslims have often challenged the
reliability of Christian sources, accusing Christians of believing in “manipulated
Gospels” written under the influence of Greco-Roman religions. This unfriendly
approach has gone both ways. As Oddbjorn Leirvick mentions:
On the Christian side, it has always been hard to recognize the
prophethood of Muḥammad, and even to discuss Islam as something other
than a Christian heresy…. Christian contributions to the issue have often
implied that Islam is but a poor copy of Christianity, suggesting that Islam
has transferred central features of Christ to Muḥammad, and distorted the
real image of Jesus Christ to conform to another religious setting.135
It stands to reason that these accusations and prejudices have never helped the
implementation of a constructive dialogue. Fortunately, besides them, some deeper
exchanges and dialogues have happened, at both academic and popular levels, between
those Muslims and Christians who have tried to understand each other with mutual
135 Oddbjorn Leirvick, Images of Jesus Christ in Islam. 2
nd ed. London: Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2010 (p. 1).
CONCLUSION
330
respect for the diversity of beliefs and practices. To consolidate these rare instances of
dialogue between Muslims and Christians, Oddbjorn suggests a rethinking of five major
points of divergence, the third one being “rethinking the Cross.” On this point he states:
Exegetically, the question of what the Qur’ân actually says about the cross
and crucifixion remains unsolved, and the Qur’ân has been interpreted
differently at this point by its exegetes. Theologically, the question of the
crucifixion is inseparable from what Muslims have perceived as non-
acceptable implications of the cross as a religious symbol …. Historically,
the question may be raised of whether the rejection of the Cross should
primarily be read in the context of political confrontation … rather than as
an expression of theological strictures.136
Oddbjorn concludes by citing Ida Glaser and suggests: “…‘thinking about the Cross in
the context of Islam leads us [Christians] to seeing ourselves anew’ –being called to self-
critically embody a theology of the Cross rather than imposing it on others.”137
This thesis is a response to Oddbjorn’s call, by rethink the cross in Islam through
re-studying the exegetical aspects of the crucifixion from within Muslim texts using
Islam’s own terms on the issue. To do so, this thesis had to develop three Qur’ânic
theories, including the theory of five layers of meaning, the theory of double messages of
the Qur’ân, and the theory of humans’ tripartite nature. The first two theories can be used
for a re-study of any subject matter in the Qur’ân. Together, these first two theories try to
open new windows and shed new light on scholarly textual efforts within the field of
Qur’ânic Studies. The third theory, however, aims specifically to blow a new breath of
understanding onto the Qur’ân’s presentation of human nature. In particular, one of the
specific usages of this last theory can be the re-studying of the Qur’ânic image of Jesus’
crucifixion and death. The combination of these three theories with some modern
approaches and methods such as historico-critical and redaction critical approaches
enables us to see how in its fifth layer of meaning, the Qur’ân’s own answer to the
question of Jesus’ crucifixion is neither a rejection nor an acceptance of it. In fact, this
thesis demonstrates that the Qur’ân is very clear in its refusal to take position vis-à-vis the
crucifixion, one way or another. The Qur’ân’s answer of “no one knows the truth but
God” seems, in a final analysis, to be definitive in not taking position one way or another.
136 Ibid., 239.
137
Ibid., 240. The brackets are from the original text.
CONCLUSION
331
This answer may prove to be a unique Qur’ânic dialogical approach that can be used for
many other points of debate between adherents of different faiths, especially Muslims
and Christians in this case.
As explained in chapter four, the Qur’ân categorizes human disagreements and
debates in three different levels/categories: human, theological, and historical. The
Qur’ân suggests that, for achieving agreement on issues belonging to the first level,
humans are born gifted with a natural capacity to recognize good from evil. The Qur’ân
calls this capacity fiṭra, and clarifies that humans are the only creatures with whom God
has shared this power. As discussed in chapter two, to the Qur’ân, fiṭra is rooted in both
human’s rational and emotional powers. The Qur’ân announces that fiṭra functions as a
compass that guides towards a harmonious life with oneself and others, with no need for
the revelation of any “extra-guidance” called religion. The second level, however, refers
to the main focus of revelation/religion and its teachings. Not only does the Qur’ân invite
Muslims to get seriously involved in theological debates and discussions with “others,”
but the Qur’ân itself also takes part in those debates and discussions, by presenting
arguments directly addressed to adherents of other faiths, notably Jews and Christians.
The third level, or the historical level, is where the Qur’ânic explanations sometimes
become ambiguous. Some examples of those ambiguous instances are given within this
thesis, and many others can be discovered by re-reading the Qur’ân through this tripartite
categorization.138
Jesus’ crucifixion is an example par excellence of a disagreement about a
historical event that the Qur’ân purposely leaves unsolved. While the Qur’ân shows
interest in narrating in detail and with extraordinary clarity some stories about Jesus,
when it comes to his end on earth, the Qur’ân keeps silent about the details of the
crucifixion. Even the important theological implications of the crucifixion, such as the
concept of original sin so central to Christian theology, cannot convince the Qur’ân to
break its silence. As a matter of fact, one cannot find a single direct or indirect Qur’ânic
138 Another example for this ambiguity vis-à-vis a historical event can be found in Sûrah Al-Fîl (chapter
105). There, the Qur’ân does not clearly reveal if the Prophet Muḥammad witnessed the historical event of
Abraha’ unsuccessful attack on the Ka‘ba or not, and keeps it ambiguous. The first âyah of this Sûrah has
caused many debates among mufassirûn on the date of the event and its relationship to the birth year of the
Prophet. To read more, see tafâsir of 1:105.
CONCLUSION
332
reference to the notion of original sin (not to be confused with Adam’s sin), developed by
Augustine of Hippo more than two centuries before the Qur’an came into existence.
This standpoint of the Qur’ân takes the earthly “local event” of the crucifixion and
turns it into a “universal phenomenon” calling Muslims and Christians to reconcile. This
“event” versus “phenomenon” aspect of the Qur’ânic message, a conceptual difference I
borrow from Yedullah Kazmi (1973- ), is what distinguishes the nabawî (prophetic)
dimension of the Qur’ân from its rasûlî (messengeric) dimension. Kazmi writes:
By the Qur’an as event is meant any single understanding of the Qur’an
which, because it is specific to a time and place, is unrepeatable and hence
unique. The Qur’an as phenomenon refers to the Qur’an’s universal
character. If the Qur’an as event is specific to a time and place and hence
unrepeatable and unique, the Qur’an as phenomenon is analogous to a
narrative unfolding in time in which each event of the Qur’an is an
episode…. It is to highlight the importance of reflecting on the universal
nature of the Qur’an that a sharp distinction between event and
phenomenon is made.139
Efforts of story tellers such as Wahb Ibn Munabbih and subsequent mufassirûn who cited
him, such as Ṭabarî, reduce the universal phenomenon of Jesus’ crucifixion to an earthly
time bound event, and change its functions from reconciler and peacebuilder to
differentiator and conflict maker.140
To my knowledge, Ṭabâṭabâ’î is the only mufassir
who noticed that any effort to achieve a definitive answer to the question of the
crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur’ân is impossible. Yet, like his colleagues, he was not able
to see “the possibly deeper lesson” that can emerge from understanding the Qur’ân’s
purpose in keeping uncertain and ambiguous certain passages, as in the case of the one
touching on the question of Jesus’ crucifixion. As shown several times within this
dissertation, this inability to see the larger than life message of the Qur’ân in its universal
context comes, in part, from the difficulty to transcend the historical context through
which any mufassir interpretes the Qur’ân and comes to write a tafsîr of his own. This
139 Yedullah Kazmi, “The Qur’ân as Event and as Phenomenon.” Islamic Studies, vol. 41, No. 2 (Summer
2002): 193-214 (pp. 193-4).
140
It is bothering to know that Râzî rightly notices some unacceptable logical weaknesses of Wahb’s
narratives, but at the end considers the miracle nature of the event, or the very little group of witnesses of
the crucifixion as “acceptable answers” for his rational critics, and follows other mufassirûn in confirming
the substitutionist theory.
CONCLUSION
333
criticism, of course, is true about any other work of hermeneutics, including the present
dissertation. But the barriers and limits of the human mind bound by space and time do
not prevent passionate souls from marching towardsan ever increasing appreciation of the
plurality of human readings of truth, where tolerance and respect can be a common basis
for interpreting every sacred text, in any place, and at any time. As Robert Detweiler
rightly states:
Not only do literature and art continue to be creatively produced and to
stand witness within this crucial transition, but the processes of
interpretation also flourish, and it is imperative that we continue to read.
Our religio-moral responsibilities to translate the implications of the texts
before us remain challenged by the paradoxes, aporias, and urgencies of
these texts. And if contemporary hermeneutics have shifted from the
ancient hermeneutics of the community to the anxious readings of the
individual, at the same time they have moved from a hermeneutics of trust
to what Ricoeur calls a hermeneutics of suspicion. Perhaps this is always a
necessary move for the postmodern, serving both to alert us to those traits
of deceit and irony which surround us in the very fabric of what we
perceive as order and to allow the release of our collective, repressive
denials. For there will come many who will lead us astray.141
141 Robert Detweiler and David Jasper (eds.), Religion and Literature: A Reader. Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2000 (p. 175).
Bibliography
‘Abd al-Bâqî, Muḥammad Fu’âd, Al-Mu’jam al-Mufahras li Alfâdh al-Qur’ân. Beirut: Dâr
al-Fikr, 1981.
Abdiyah Abdul Haqq, Akbar. Christologies in Early Christian Thought and in the Qur’ân:
Being a Critical Analysis and Comparison of Selected Christological Views in Christian
Writings to 785 A.D. and Those of the Qur’ân. Ph.D. Diss. Northwestern University,
1953.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Updated with
a New Preface. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.
Abu Riyâḥ, Maḥmûd. Aḍwâ’ ‘alâ al-Sunnah al-Muḥammadiyyah. Beirut: Mu’assisat al-
A‘lamî, 1996.
Abu-Zayd, Nasr. “The Dilemma of the Literary Approach to the Qur’an.” Journal of
Comparative Poetics, No. 23, Literature and the Sacred (2003): 8-47.
Adang, Camilla. Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn
Hazm. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.
Afsar, Ayaz. “A Comparative Study of the Art of Jonah/Yûnus Narrative in the Bible and the
Qur’ân.” Islamic Studies, vol. 48, No. 3 (Autumn 2009): 319-339.
Afsaruddin, Asma. “Excellences of the Qur’an: Textual Sacrality and the Organization of
Early Islamic Society.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 122, No. 1 (Jan.-
March 2002): 1-24.
____ “The Hermeneutics of Inter-Faith Relations: Retrieving Moderation and Pluralism as
Universal Principles in Qur’anic Exegeses.” Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 37, issue 2
(May 2009): 331-54.
Agrama, Hussein Ali. “Ethics, tradition, authority: Toward an anthropology of the fatwa” In
American Ethnologist, vol. 37, Issue 1 (2010): 2-18.
Ahmad, Ziauddin. “The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam.” Islamic Studies, vol. 14, No. 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
335
(Winter 1975): 293-305.
Ahmed, Nazeer. “The Fall of Cordoba.” In An Encyclopaedia of Islamic History. No page
number. Concord, CA: e-published by history of Islam Web Site. Available online at
http://historyofislam.com/contents/the-classical-period/cordoba-the-fall-of/.
Aksoy, S. “Making Regulations and Drawing up Legislation in Islamic Countries under
Conditions of Uncertainty, with Special Reference to Embryonic Stem Cell Research.”
Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 31, No. 7 (July 2005): 399-403.
‘Ali, Orooj Ahmed. Trans. Al-Qur’ân: a Contemporary Translation. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1993. Available online at
http://www.deenresearchcenter.com.
‘Ali, Yûsuf ‘Abdullâh. Trans. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’ân. Seattle: Pacific Publishing
Studio, 2010. Aavailable online at http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/.
al-Alûsî, Maḥmûd Shahâb al-Dîn. Rûḥ al-Ma‘ânî fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-‘Aẓîm wa al-Sab‘ al-
Mathânî. 16 vols. Edited by ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Bârî ‘Aṭiyyah. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, no date.
Available online at www.altafsir.com.
Arafat, W. N. “New Light on the Story of Banû Qurayẓa and the Jews of Medina.” The
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (1976): 100-7.
Arnaldez, Roger. “Le Moi divin et le Moi humain d’après le commentaire coranique de Faḫr
Al-Dîn Al-Râzî.” Studia Islamica, No. 36 (1972): 71-97.
al-‘Asqalânî, Shihâb al-Dîn Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Muḥammad ibn Ḥajar. Fatḥ al-Bârî bi Sharḥ
Ṣaḥîḥ al-Bukhârî, 13 vols. Cairo: Dâr Miṣr, 1969.
____ Lisân al-Mizân. 7 vols. Beirut: Mu’assisat al-A‘lamî li al-Maṭbû’ât, 1986. Available
online at http://www.alwaraq.net/Core/waraq/coverpage?bookid=258.
‘Athamina, Khalil. “‘An-Nabiyy al-Ummiyy’: An Inquiry into the meaning of a Qur’ânic
Verse.” Der Islam, 69 (1992): 61.80.
____ “Al-Qaṣaṣ: Its Emergence, Religious Origin and Its Socio-Political Impact on Early
Muslim Society.” Studia Islamica, No. 76 (1992): 53-74.
Augustine of Hippo, Confessions. E-book in the series of Spark Notes Philosophy Guide. The
summary e-published by Barnes and Noble. NewYork: Spark Publishing, 2005.
Available online at http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/augustine/section1.rhtml.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
336
Avnon, Dan. “‘Know Thyself’: Socratic Companionship and Platonic Community.” Political
Theory, vol. 3, No. 2 (May 1995): 304-329.
Barlas, Asma. “The Qur’an and Hermeneutics: Reading the Qur’an’s Opposition to
Patriarchy.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 3 No 2 (2001): 15-38.
al-Bayḍâwî, Imâm Abdullâh b. ‘Umar b. Muḥammad al-Shirâzî. Anwâr al-Tanzîl wa Asrâr
al-Ta’wîl. Beirut: Dâr al-Jîl, 1911. E-published by Maktabat Mujaddidiyah, available at
http://www.maktabah.org/quran/tafsir/970-tafsir-al-baydawi--.html.
Bâzargân, Mehdi. Bâzgasht beh Ghor’ân. 2 vols. Tehran: Sherkat-e Sahâmy-e Enteshâr,
1389 Solar hijra.
Beheshtî, Ahmad. Isâ, Payâm Âvar-e Eslâm. Tehran : Enteshârat-e Ettelâ’ât, 1379 Solar
hijra.
Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. “Beyond the Secular and the Sacred: Qur’anic inscriptions in
medieval Islamic Art and Material Culture.” In Word of God, Art of Man: The Qur’ân
and its Creative Expressions. Edited by Fahmida Suleman. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007.
____ “Cairo of the Mamluks: A History of the Architecture and Its Culture.” London: I.B.
Tauris and Co. Ltd., 2007.
Berque, Jacques. Trans. Le Coran: essai de traduction. 2 vols. Paris: Éditions Albin
Michel,1995.
Berthoff, Warner. “The Study of Literature and the Recovery of the Historical.” College
English, vol. 27, No.7 (April 1967): 477-486.
Bialostosky, Don. “Should College English Be Close Reading?” College English, vol. 69,
No. 2 (Nov. 2006): 111-116.
Blachère, Régis. Le Coran: Traduction selon un essai de reclassement des sourates. 3 vols.
Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve, 1947-51.
____ Introduction au Coran. 2e edition. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, 1991.
Boddy, Janice. “Spirits and Selves in Northern Sudan: The Cultural Therapeutics of
Possession and Trance.” American Ethnologist, vol. 15, No. 1, Medical Anthropology
(Feb. 1988): 4-27.
Boubakeur, Hamza. Trans. Le Coran: Traduction nouvelle. 5 vols. Alegeria: ENAG, 1994.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
337
Brodeur, Patrice. From an Islamic Heresiography to an Islamic History of Religions: Modern
Arab Muslim Literature on ‘Religious Others’. Ph.D. Diss. Harvard University, 1999.
Brooks, Cleanth. “The State of Letters: The New Criticism.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 87,
No. 4 (Fall 1979): 592-607.
al-Bukhârî, Muḥammad b. Isma’îl. Ṣaḥîḥ al-Bukhârî. 3rd
edition, Beirut: Dâr Ibn Kathîr,
1987. E-published by Maktabat al-Islâmiyyah al-Shâmila, available online at
http://sh.rewayat2.com/hadith2/.
Burton, John. “The Exegesis of Q. 2:106 and the Islamic Theories of Naskh: Mâ Nansakh
Min Âya aw Nansâhâ Na‘ṭî bi Khayrin Minhâ aw Mithlihâ.” Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 48, No. 3 (1985): 452-469.
Busse, Heribert. “Jesu Errettung vom Kreuz in der islamischen Koranexegese von Sure
4:157.” Oriens, vol. 36 (2001): 160-95.
____ “Der Tod Jesu in der Darstellung des Korans, Sure 3:55, und die islamische
Koranexegese.” Studia Orientalia Christiana – Collectanea, vol. 31 (1998): 35-76.
Castaneda Reyes, Jose Carlos. “De la Muerte y las Muertes en el Mundo Islamico : Algunas
Reflexiones Sobre la Muerte de Muḥammad, el Profeta.” Estudios de Asia y Africa, vol.
44, No. 3 (140) (Sep.-Dec. 2009): 491-525.
Chiadmi, Mohammed. Trans. Le Noble Coran: Nouvelle traduction française du sens de ses
versets. Lyon: Tawhid, 2007.
Chittick, William C. “The Perfect Man as the Prototype of the Self in the Sufism of Jâmî.”
Studia Islamica, No. 49 (1979): 135-157.
____ Sufism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000.
Chouraqui, André. Trans. Le Coran, l’appel. Paris: Robert Lafont, 1990.
Christman, Andreas. ““The Form Is Permanent, but the Content Moves”: The Qur’anic Text
and Its Interpretation(S) in Mohamad Shahrour’s ‘Al-Kitâb wal Qur’ân’.” Die Welt des
Islams, New Series, vol. 43, Issue 2 (2003): 143-172.
Clarke, Norris. “Self as Source of Meaning in Metaphysics.” The Review of Metaphysics, vol.
21, No. 4 (June 1968): 597-614.
Collins, Terence. The Mantle of Elijah: the Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books.The
Biblical Seminar. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1993.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
338
Cook, Bradley J. “The Book of Abraham and the Islamic Qiṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’ (Tales of the
Prophets) Extant Literature.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, (no date): 127-
146. E-published by dialoguejournal.com, available at
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-ontent/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_137.pdf.
Cook, David. “Suicide Attacks or ‘Martyrdom Operations in Contemporary Jihad
Literature.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, vol. 6, No.
1 (Oct. 2002): 7-44.
Conrad, Lawrence I. “Review of Al-Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation by Ahmed Ali.”
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, vol. 13, No. 2 (July 2003): 250-253.
Corbin, Henry. The History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Kegan Paul International, 1993.
Cornell, Vincent. “God: God in Islam.” In Encyclopaedia of Religion. 2nd
edition. 15 vols.
Edited by Lindsay Jones (editor in chief), 5:3561-3562. Detroit: Macmillan, 2005.
Cragg, Kenneth. “The Historical Geography of the Qur’ân: A Study in asbâb al-nuzûl.”
Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 1, No. 1 (1999): 81-92.
____ Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.
____ Readings in the Qur’ân. London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1988.
Crowell, Lee. The Dog Whisperer. E-publsihed by poemhunet.com, available online at
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-dog-whisperer/.
Cuypers, Michel. The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an. Edited by Rafael
Luciani and translated from French by Patricia Kelly. Miami: Convivium Press, 2009.
al-Dârimî, Abu Muḥammad ‘Abdullâh b. Bahrâm. Sunan al-Dârimî. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr,
2005. Available online at http://www.downloadquransoftware.com/download-sunan-ad-
darimi/.
De Blois, François. “Naṣrânî (Ναζωραȋος) and ḥanîf (ἐθνικός): Studies on the Religious
Vocabulary of Christianity and of Islam.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, vol. 65, No. 1 (2002): 1-30.
De Prémare, Alfred-Louis. “Wahb B. Munabbih, une figure singulière du premier islam.”
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 60e année, No. 3 (May-June 2005): 531-549.
Denny, Frederick Mathewson. “Some Religio-Communal Terms and Concepts in the
Qur’ân.” Numen, vol. 24, Fasc. 1 (April 1977): 26-59.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
339
____ “Ummah in the Constitution of Medina.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 36, No.
1 (Jan. 1977): 39-47.
Detweiler, Robert and David Jasper, eds. Religion and Literature: A Reader. Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.
al-Dhahabî, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Tadhkirat al Ḥifâẓ wa Dhyoulihi. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1998.
____ Al-Tafsîr wa al-Mufassirûn. 3 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Kutub al- Ḥadîtha, 1961.
al-Dinwarî, abu Muḥammad ‘Abdullâh b. Muslim. Ta’wîl Gharîb al-Qur’ân. Beirut: Dâr al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1978.
Du Rye, André. Trans. Le Coran de Mahomet. Paris: Antoine de Sommaville, 1647.
Ebeid, Rifaat and David Thomas, eds. Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades: The
Letter from the People of Cyprus and Ibn Abî Ṭâlib al-Dimashqî’s Response. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available online at http://www.britannica.com.
Faizer, Rizwi S. “The Issue of Authenticity regarding the Traditions of al-Wâqidî as
Established in His Kitâb al-Maghâzî.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 58, No. 2
(1999): 97-106.
____ “Muhammad and the Medinan Jews: A Comparison of the Texts of Ibn Ishaq’s Kitâb
Sîrat Rasûl Allâh with al-Waqidi’s Kitâb al-Maghâzi.” International Journal of Middle
East Studies, vol. 28, No. 4 (Nov. 1996): 463-489.
al-Farâhidî, ‘Abd al-Raḥmân Khalîl b. Aḥmad. Kitâb al-‘Ayn. 1st ed. Syria: Manẓamat al-
Awqâf wa al-Umûr al-Khayriyyah, 1414H. Available online at
http://archive.org/details/alaeen_Farahidi.
Farouqi, Fazal A. Jesus in the Qur’ân. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University/M.S.A.,
1964.
al-Fayrûzâbâdî, Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb. Al-Qâmûs al-Muḥîṭ. 3rd
ed. Cairo: al-Hiy’at al-
Miṣriyyah al-‘Âmmah li al-Kitâb, 1979. Aavailable online at
http://archive.org/details/211208.
Filiz, Sahin. “The Founder of the Muḥâsibî School of Sufism: Al-Ḥârith ibn Asad al-
Muḥâsibî.” Islamic Studies, vol. 45, No. 1 (Spring 2006): 59-81.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
340
Frenkel, Yehoshua. “The Qur’ân Versus the Cross in the Wake of the Crusade: The Social
Function of Dreams and Symbols in Encounter and Conflict (Damascus, July 1148).”
Quaderni di Studi Arabi, vol. 20/21 (2002-2003): 105-132.
Frye, Northrop. “Criticism, Visible and Invisible.” College English, vol. 26, no 1 (Oct.
1964): 3-12.
al-Futûḥî, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-Munîr. 2nd
ed. 4 vols. Riyadh:
Maktabat ‘Abikân, 1997.
Galli, Ahmad Mohmed Ahmad. “Some Aspects of al-Mâturîdî’s Commentary on the
Qur’ân.” Islamic Studies, vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring 1982): 3-21.
Geertz, Clifford. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. 3rd
ed. New
York: Basic Books, 2000.
Al-Ghazâlî, abu Ḥâmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. Iḥyâ’ ‘Ulûm al-Dîn. Cairo: al-Maktabat
al-Tijâriyyah al-Kubrâ. No date. Available online at
http://www.ghazali.org/site/ihya.htm.
Goddard, Hugh. A Story of Christian-Muslim Relations. Chicago: New Amsterdam Books,
2001.
Goldfeld, Yeshayahu. “The Development of Theory on Qur’ânic Exegesis in Islamic
Scholarship.” Studia Islamica, No. 67 (1988): 5-27.
Graham, William A. Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam. Paris and The Hague:
Mouton and Co., 1977.
____ “The Earliest Meaning of ‘Qur’ân’.” Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Bd. 23/24
(1984): 361-377.
Griffith, Sydney H. “Jews and Muslims in Christian Syriac and Arabic Texts of the Ninth
Century.” Jewish History, vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 1988): 65-94.
Günther, Sebastian. “Muḥammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur’an and
Qur’anic Exegesis.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 4, No. 1 (2002): 1-26.
al-Ḥajjâj, abu Ḥusayn Muslim. Al-Jâmi‘ al-Ṣaḥîḥ. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Turâth al-‘Arabî. E-
published by Maktabat al-Taqrîb, available online at
http://www.taghrib.org/library/book2.php?bi=820.
____ Al-Jâmi‘ al-Ṣaḥîḥ. 7 vols. Edited and expanded by Abu Zakariyyah Yaḥyâ b. Sharaf al-
Nûwî. Cairo: Dâr al-Khayr, 1996. Available online at
BIBLIOGRAPHY
341
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=53&ID.
Hames, Constant. “L’usage talismanique du Coran.” Revue de l’histoire des religions, vol.
218, Issue 1 (2001): 83-95.
Hamidullah, Muhammad. Trans. Le Coran. Paris: no publisher, 1963. Available online at
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?l=arb&t=frn&nSora=1&nAya=1.
Haque, Amber. “Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim
Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists.” Journal of Religion
and Health, vol. 43, No. 4 (Winter 2004): 357-377.
Hartman, Angelika. “Cosmogonie et doctrine de l’âme dans l’oeuvre tardive de ‘Umar as-
Suhrawardî (M. 632/1234).” Quaderni di Studi Arabi, vol. 11 (1993): 163-178.
Haywood, John A. Arabic Lexicography: Its History, and Its Place in the General History of
Lexicography. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1965.
Heck, Paul L. “Crisis of Knowledge in Islam (I): The Case of al-‘Amirî.” Philosophy East
and West, vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan. 2006): 106-135.
Hedayat, K. M. and P. Shooshtarizadeh, and M. Raza. “Therapeutic Abortion in Islam:
Contemporary Views of Muslim Shiite Scholars and Effect of Recent Iranian
Legislation.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 32, No. 11 (Nov. 2006): 652-657.
Hermansen, Marcia K. “Shâh Walî Allâh’s Theory of the Subtle Spiritual Centers (Laṭâ’if):
A Sufi Model of Personhood and Self-Transformation.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan. 1988): 1-25.
Hillier, Chad. Contemporary Western Representations of Jesus in Islam. MA thesis, Wilfred
Laurier University, 2001.
Horswell, Charles. “The External Form of the Qur’ân.” The Old and New Testament Student,
vol. 11, No. 6 (Dec. 1890): 341-348.
Hosseinî Jalâlî, Seyyed Mohammad Reza. Tadwîn al-Sunnah al-Sharîfa. Qum: Maktab al-
A’lâm al-Islâmî, 1413H.
Ḥusayn, Ṭâhâ. Al-Fitnat al-Kubrâ. 2 vols. 1st volume translated by Seyyed Ja‘far Shahîdî.
Tehran: Ali Akbar Elmî, 1957.
Ibn abi al-Dunyâ, Kitâb al-Mawt wa-Kitâb al-Qubûr. Edited by L. Kinberg. Haifa:
University of Haifa, 1983.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
342
Ibn abi al-Ḥadîd, Abu Bakr ‘Abdullâh b. Muḥammad. Sharḥ Nahj al-Balâgha. 1st ed. 20 vols.
Edited by Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Karîm al-Namrî. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-Kutub al-
‘Arabiyyah, 1418H. E-publsihed by al-Maktaba al-Shâmila, available online at
http://shamela.ws/rep.php/book/4355.
Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah, ‘Abd al-Haq b. abi Bakr b. ‘Abd al-Mâlik al-Gharnâṭî. Al-Jâmi‘ al-Muḥarrir
al-Ṣaḥîḥ al-Wajîz fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân al-‘Azîz. 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah,
2001.
Ibn Fâris, abu al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad. Mu‘jam Maqâyîs al-Lugha. 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr,
1979. Available online at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3144.
Ibn Ḥanbal, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Musnad Imâm Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal. 6 vols.‚ Cairo:
Mu’assisat al-Qurṭaba, no date. Available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=8&book=58.
Ibn Jazrî, Shams al-Dîn abu al-Khayr Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad ‘Ali. Ghâyat
al-Nihâyat fi Ṭabaqât al-Qurrâ’. 2 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2006.
Ibn Kathîr, Ḥâfiẓ abu al-Fidâ’ Ismâ‘îl. Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr. 8 vols. Edited by Sâmî b.
Muḥammad al-Salâmat. Riyadh: Dâr Ṭaiba for Publishing and Distributions, 1999.
Available online at http://rowea.blogspot.ca/2010/02/pdf-8.html.
Ibn Mâjah, abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad b. Yazîd. Sunan Ibn Mâjah. 5 vols. Edited by Bashâr
‘Awâd Ma‘rûf. Beirut: Dâr al-Jîl, 1998. E-published by Multaqâ Ahl al-Ḥadîth, available
online at http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=87201.
Ibn Mandhar, Muḥammad b. Ibrâhîm. Tafsîr Ibn Mandhar. Edited by ‘Abdullâh b. ‘Abd al-
Muhsin al-Turkî. Medina: Dâr al-Ma’âthir, 1423H.
Ibn Manẓûr, abu al-Faḍl Jamâl al-Dîn Muḥammad b. Mukram. Lisân al-‘Arab. Qum: Adab
al-Ḥawza, 1363 Solar hijra. Available online at http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp.
Ibn Najjâr, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Futûḥî. Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-Munîr. 2nd
ed. 4 vols.
Riyadh: Maktabat ‘Abikân, 1997.
Ibn Quddâma al-Muqaddasî, abu Muḥammad ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad. Rawḍat al-Nâẓir wa
Jannat al-Manâẓir. Riyadh: Jâmi‘at al-Imâm Muḥammad b. Sa‘ûd, 1399H. E-published
by maktabat al-Mishkât al-Islâmiyyah, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=2120&cat=36.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
343
Ibn Sînâ, abu ‘Ali al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Abdullâh. Kitâb al-Ishârât wa al-Tanbîhât. Translated and
edited by Hasan Malekshâhî. Tehran: Soroush, 1368 Solar hijra.
Ibn Taymiyya, Aḥmad. Muqaddima fi Uṣûl al-Tafsîr. Damascus: Maṭba‘at al-Taraqqî, 1936.
Ibn Wathîma al-Fârsî, abu Rifâ‘a b. ‘Umâra. Kitâb Bad’ al-Khalq wa Qiṣaṣ al-Anbyâ’.
Translated in French as Les légendes prophétiques dans l’Islam. Translated and edited by
Raif Georges Khoury. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.1978.
Javâdî Âmolî, Abdollâh. “Nozûl-e daf’î va tadrîji-ye Qor’ân.” Tabnak e-newspaper of Aug.
9th
2012: no page number. Available online at http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/263859/.
al-Jawharî, abu Naṣr Ismâ‘îl b. Ḥimâd. Al-Ṣiḥâḥ fi al-Lugha. 4th
ed. 6 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-
‘Ilm li al-Malâ’în, 1984. Available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?book=1140&cat=16.
al-Jazâ’irî, abu Bakr Jâbir b. Mûsâ. Aysar al-Tafâsîr li Kalâm al-‘Alî al-Kabîr. 3rd
ed. 5 vols.
Madinah al-Munawwarah: Maktabat al-‘Ulûm wa al-Ḥukm, 1997. Available online at
http://archive.org/details/aysar-attfaseer.
Jeffery, Arthur. The Qur’ân As Scripture. New York: Russell F. Moore Company Inc., 1952.
Jellinek, Adolph. Bet ha-Midrasch. Vienna: no publisher name, 1873.
Jones, Alan. Arabic through the Qur’ân. Cambridge: Islamic Text Society, 1999.
Jones, W.H.S. and H.A. Ormerod. Trans. Pausanias Description of Greece. 4 vols.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1918. E-
published by Tufts University in Perseus Digital Library Collection, available online at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/.
Kaplan, Justin. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. 16th
ed. Boston, London, and Toronto: Little,
Brown, 1992.
Karcic, Fikret. “Textual Analysis in Islamic Studies: A Short Historical and Comparative
Survey.” Islamic Studies, vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2006): 191-220.
al-Kâshânî, Mullâ Muḥsin Fayḍ . Al-Ṣâfî fi Tafsîr Kalâm Allâh al-Wâfî. 5 vols. Edited by
Ḥusayn al-A‘lamî. Beirut: Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, 1979-82.
Kasimirski. Trans. Le Coran. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1970.
Khalifa, I. M. An Analytical Study of ‘Asabiyah: Ibn Khaldun’s Theory of Social Conflict.
Doc. Thesis. Washington, Catholic University of America. 1972.
Khaṭîb al-Baghdâdî, Aḥmad b. ‘Ali b. Thâbit. Taqyîd al-‘Ilm. Damascus: no publisher, 1949.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
344
Kazmi, Yedullah. “The Qur’ân as Event and as Phenomenon.” Islamic Studies, vol. 41, No. 2
(Summer 2002): 193-214.
al-Khumaynî, Sayyid Rûḥullâh al-Mûsawî. Resâleh-ye Towzih ol-Masâel. E-published by
4shred.com, available online at
http://search.4shared.com/postDownload/AjnVU8pa/resaleh_ayatollah_khomeini.html.
Khorramshâhî, Bahâ al-Dîn. “Is the Ta’wil of the Qur’an Known Only to God ?” The
Message of Thaqalayn, vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn 1997/1418H): no page number. Available
online at http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_quran_tawil.htm.
Khoury, Nuha N. N. “The Meaning of the Great Mosque of Cordoba in the Tenth Century.”
Muqarnas, vol. 13 (1996): 80-98.
Kia, Chad. “Is the Bearded Man Drowning? Picturing the Figurative in a Late-Fifteenth-
Century Painting from Herat.” Muqarnas, vol. 23 (2006): 85-105.
Kinberg, Lea. “Interaction between This World and the Afterworld in Early Islamic
Tradition.” Oriens, vol. 29/30 (1986): 285-308.
Knysh, Alexander. “Multiple Areas of Influence.” In The Cambridge Companion to the
Qur’ân. Edited by Jane. D. McAuliffe, 211-233. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
Koetschau, Paul. Trans. On First Principles. New York: Harper and Row. 1996. E-published
by New Advent website, available online at
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm.
Kohlberg, Etan. “Muwâfât Doctrines in Muslim Theology.” Studia Islamica, No. 57 (1983):
47-66.
al-Kulaynî, Muḥammad b. Ya‘qûb. Uṣûl al-Kâfî. 2nd
ed. 8 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-
Islâmiyyah, 1365H. E-published by Markaz al-Ish’â‘a al-Islâmî li al-Dirâsât wa al-
Buḥûth al-Islâmiyyah. Available online at
http://www.islam4u.com/maktabah_list.php?sid=3.
Lamb, W.R.M. Trans., Plato in Twelve Volumes. Vol. 8, Charmides. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1955. E-published in
Perseus Digital Library Collection by Tufts University, available online at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
345
Lambden, Stephen. A Bibliographical List of Works on the Stories of the Prophets. Online
document, e-publsihed by the author’s personal web site, 2007-8. Available online at
http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/, under “Arabic and Islamic Studies, Notes
and Bibliography” then under “Qaṣaṣ al-anbyâ’”.
Lawson, Todd. The Crucifixion and the Qurʼan: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought.
Oxford: One World Publications, 2009.
Leemhuis, Fred. Origins and Early Development of the Tafsir Tradition: Approaches to the
Interpretation of the Qur’an. Edited by Andrew Rippin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
Lerman, Eran. “Mawdudi’s Concept of Islam.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct.
1981): 492-509.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire : From Surrener to
Coexistence. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2011.
Lewis, Bernard. Race and Slavery in the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1994.
Librande, Leonard. “The calligraphy of the Qur’ân: How it functions for Muslims.” Religion,
vol. 9, issue 1 (Spring 1979): 36-52.
Little, Donald P. “Coptic Conversion to Islam under the Baḥrî Mamlûks, 692-755/1293-
1354.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol.
39,No. 3 (1976): 552-569.
____ “Communal Strife in Late Mamlûk Jerusalem.” Islamic Law and Society, 6 (1999): 69-
96.
Macdonald, D. B. “The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzâlî.” Isis, vol. 25, No. 1
(May 1936): 9-15.
____ “Wahm in Arabic and Its Cognates.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, No. 4 (Oct. 1922): 505-521.
Ma‘rûf al-Ḥasanî, Hâshim. Dirâsât fi al-Ḥadîth wa al-Muḥâddithîn. Beirut: Dâr al-Ta‘âruf li
al-Maṭbû‘ât, 1978.
Maddux, Kristy. “Finding Comedy in Theology: A Hopeful Supplement to Kenneth Burke’s
Logology.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 39 Issue 3 (2006): 208-232.
Madigan, Daniel A. The Qur’ân’s Self Image: Writing and Authority in Islam’s Scripture.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
346
Makârem Shirâzî, Nâser, ed. Tafsîr-e Nemouneh. 27 vols. E-published by the editor,
available online at www.makaremmedia.com.
Makkî ibn abi Talib, abu Muḥammad. Al-Hidâyat ilâ Bulûgh al-Nihâyat fi ‘Ilm Ma‘ânî al-
Qur’ân. 13 vols. Sharjah, U.A.E.: Jâmi‘ah al-Shârjah, 2008. Available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=3962.
____ Kitâb al-Kashf ‘an Wujûh al-qirâ’ât al-sab‘. 2 vols. Edited by M. Ramadan. Beirut:
Mu’assasat al-Risâlat, 1987.
Ma‘sûmî, M. Ṣaghîr Ḥasan. Trans. Imâm Râzi’s ‘Ilm al-Akhlâq: Kitâb al-Nafs wa al-Rûḥ wa
Sharḥ Quwâhumâ. Islâmâbâd: Islamic Research Institute (1970). Distributed by Oxford
University Press.
Martin, Richard C. “Understanding the Qur’an in Text and Context.” History of Religions,
vol. 21, No. 4 (May 1982): 361-384.
Masson, Denise. Trans. Le Coran. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1967.
Maudûdî, Sayyid abu al-‘Alâ. Towards Understanding the Qur’ân. Translated and edited by
Zafar Ishaq Ansari. No place of publication: Islamic Foundation, 2006. Available online
at http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/3/index.html#sdfootnote5anc.
Mayer, Toby. “Shahrastânî on the Arcana of the Qur’an: A Preliminary Evaluation.” Journal
of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 7, No. 2 (2005): 61-100.
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. “The Introduction.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ân.
Edited by Jane D. McAuliffe, 1-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
____ “The Persistent Power of the Qur’ân.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, vol. 147, No. 4 (Dec. 2003) 339-346.
____ Qur’ânic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
____ “Reading the Qur’ân with Fidelity and Freedom.” Journal oof American Academy of
Religion, 73 no 3 (S 2005): 615-635.
____ “The Task and the Traditions of Interpretation.” In The Cambridge Companion to the
Qur’ân. Edited by Jane D. McAuliffe, 181-209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006.
McGrath, Alister E. The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundations of Doctrinal
Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
347
McKoon, Gail and Roger Ratcliff. “Contextually Relevant Aspects of Meaning.” Journal of
Experimenlal Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 14, No. 2 (1988): 331-
343.
Meyerhof, Max.“An Arabic Compendium of Medico-Philosophical Definitions.” Isis, vol.
10, No. 2 (June 1928): 340-349.
Mir, Mustansir. “The Qur’an as Literature.” Religion & Literature, vol. 20, No. 1, The
Literature of Islam (Spring 1988): 49-64.
Miller, Isaac. “St. Augustine, the Narrative Self, and the Invention of Fiction.” Qui Parle,
vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 1995): 54-82.
Modarresi, Hossein. “Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qur’ân: A Brief Survey.” Studia
Islamica, No. 77 (1993): 5:39.
Modîr Shânchî, Kâzem. “Estelâhât-e Marbout beh Anvâ’-e Hadîs.” E-published by
Mo’assesseh-ye Farhangî va Ettelâ’ Resânî-ye Tebyân, available online at
http://www.andisheqom.com/Files/hadith.php?idVeiw=29549&level=4&subid=29549.
al-Moghmis, Naser. Christianity & Islam According to The Bible & The Quran. Riyadh: Dâr
al-Salâm, 2002.
Mohaghegh, Mehdi. “Notes on the ‘Spiritual Physic’ of Al-Râzî.” Studia Islamica, No. 26
(1967): 5-22.
Mohammadî Reyshahrî, Mohammad. Mizân al-Ḥikma. 14 vols. Qum: Dâr al-Ḥadîth, 1996.
Available online at http://www.tebyan.net/index.aspx?pid=18382.
Molénat, Jean-Pierre. “Le problème de la permanence des musulmans dans les territoires
conquis par les chrétiens, du point de vue de la loi islamique.” Arabica, T. 48, Fasc. 3
(2001): 392-400.
Montgomery Watt, William. Muḥammad at Medina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Moosa, Ebrahim. “Languages of Change in Islamic Law: Redefining Death in Modernity.”
Islamic Studies, vol. 38, No. 3 (Autumn 1999): 305-342.
Motahharî, Mortezâ. Training & Education in Islam. Translated by Mansoor Limba. London:
ICAS Press, 2011.
Mufassir, Sulaiman Shahid. Jesus, A Prophet of Islam. Indianapolis: American Trust
Publications, 1980.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
348
____ Jesus in the Qur’ân. Plainfield, Ind.: Muslim Students Association of the United States
& Canada, 1977.
Muir, William. The Corân, Its Composition and Teaching; and the Testimony It Bears to the
Holy Scriptures. London: Wayman and Sons, 1858.
Mullâ Ṣadrâ, Ṣadr al-Dîn Muḥammad al-Shirâzî. Al-Ḥikma al-Muta‘âliyah fi al-Asfâr al-
‘Aqliyyah al-Arba‘a. 9 vols. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-Turâth al-‘Arabî, 1410H.
____ Al-Tafsîr. 8 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Ta‘âruf li al-Maṭbû‘ât, 1998.
Muntazir Qâim, Mahdi. Jesus (Peace Be With Him) Through the Qur’ân and Shiite
Narrations. Translated into English by Muḥammad Legenhausen. New York: Tahrike
Tarsile Qur’ân Inc., 2005.
al-Najafî, Hâdî. Mawsû‘at Aḥâdîth Ahl al-Bayt. 40 vols. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ Turâth al-‘Arabî,
2002.
Nakamura, Kojiro. “Imâm Ghazâlî’s Cosmology Reconsidered with Special Reference to the
Concept of ‘Jabarût’.” Studia Islamica, No. 80 (1994): 29-46.
Naraghi, Arash. “Ghor’ân va Mas’aleh-ye Hermenotiki.” E-publsihed by Jonbesh-e Râh-e
Sabz (jaras), (Dec. 2011): no page number. Available online at
http://www.rahesabz.net/story/46161/.
____ “‘Moderate Muslims’ in Iran and the Challenge of Human Rights.” E-published by the
author’s official web site, (Aug. 2007): 1-11. Available online at www.arashnaraghi.org.
al-Nasafî, Ḥâfiẓ al-Dîn ‘Abdullâh b. Aḥmad. Madârik al-Tanzîl wa Ḥaqâ’iq al-Ta’wîl: Tafsîr
al-Nasafî. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-kalim al-Ṭayyib, 1998. Available at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=1526.
Nasimi, Daoud Mohammad. A Thematic Comparative Review of Some English Translations
of the Qur’an. Ph.D. Diss. University of Birmingham, 2008.
al-Nawawî, abu Zakariyya Muḥyuddîn Yaḥyâ b. Sharaf. Gardens of the Virtuous in the
Speech of Prophet Muḥammad. Translated into English by Muḥammad Bîḍawî. Lebanon
and Kuwait: al-Maktabat al-‘Aṣriyyah, 2007. Available online at
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/111275.
____ Riyâḍ al-Ṣâliḥîn min kalâm Sayyid al-Mursalîn. Beirut: Dâr al-Riyân li al-Turâth, 1987.
Available online at http://www.islamhouse.com/p/111275.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
349
Nazari Tavakkoli, Saeid. “A Comparison between Brain Death and Unstable Life: “Shi’ite”
Perspective.” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 23, No. 2 (2007/2008): 605-627.
Nettler, Ronald L. “Mohamed Talbi’s Commentary on Qur’ân IV: 34: A “historical reading”
of a verse concerning the disciplining of women.” The Maghreb Review 24 (1999): 19-
33.
Nicol, Iain G. “Facts and Meanings: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Theology as History and the
Role of the Historical-Critical Method.” Religious Studies, vol. 12, No. 2 (June 1976):
129-139.
al-Nisâ’î, Aḥmad b. Shu‘ayb. Sunan al-Nisâ’î. 2nd
edition. Halab: maktabat al-Maṭbû‘ât al-
Islâmiyyah, 1986. E-published by Maktabat al-Islâmiyyah al-Shâmila, available online at
http://sh.rewayat2.com/hadith2/.
Nöldeke, Theodor. Geschichte des Qorans. 2nd
revised ed. vols. 1 and 2 revised by Freidrich
Schwally; vol. 3 revised by G. Bergsträsser and O. Pretzel. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1909-26.
Oddbjorn, Leirvick. Images of Jesus Christ in Islam. 2nd
ed. London: Continuum
International Publishing Group, 2010.
O’Shaughnessy, Thomas. The Development of the Meaning of Spirit in the Koran. Rome:
Pontifical Institute, 1953.
____ Muhammad’s Thoughts on Death: A Thematic Study of the Qur’anic Data. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill, 1969.
Oxford Dictionaries Online. Available online at
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dog?q=Dog.
Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey,
Heidegger, and Gadamer. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969.
Pals, Daniel L. “Is Religion a Sui Generis Phenomenon?” Journal of the American Academy
of Religion, vol. 55, No. 2 (Summer 1987): 259-282.
Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’ân. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1995, 1965c.
Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1969.
Pernilla Ouis, Soumaya. “Islamic Ecotheology Based on the Qur’ân.” Islamic Studies, vol.
37, No. 2 (Summer 1998): 151-181.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
350
Picken, Gavin. “Tazkiyat al-nafs: The Qur’anic Paradigm.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol.
7, No. 2 (2005): 101-127.
Pickthall, Marmaduke. Trans. The Glorious Qur’ân: An Explanatory Translation. 1st ed.
NewYork: Tahrike Tarsil Qur’ân Inc., 2000. Available online at
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/.
Qomî, Sheikh ‘Abbâs. Mafâtîḥ al-Janân. Beirut: Dâr al-Ta‘âruf li al-Maṭbû‘ât, 2009.
al-Qârî, Mulâ ‘Ali. Sharḥ Sharḥ Nukhbat al-Fikr fi Muṣṭalaḥât Ahl al-Athar. E-published by
Maktabat al-Mishkât al-Islâmiyyah. Available online at
http://www.sfhatk.com/vb/uploaded/471_1218518168.zip.
al-Qâsimî, Muḥammad Jamâl al-Dîn. Qawâ’id al-Tahdîth min Funûn Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadîth.
Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1979.
al-Qur’ân (Arabic version), available online at http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/.
al-Qurṭubî, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Anṣârî. Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm al-Qur’ân. 2nd
ed. 20 vols.
Cairo: Dâr al-Kutub al-Miṣrîyyah, 1964. Available online at
http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/20855n.
____ Al-Jâmi‘ li Aḥkâm al-Qur’ân. 20 vols. Edited by Hushâm Samîr al-Bukhârî. Riyadh:
Dâr ‘Âlam al-Kutub, 2003.
____ Tadhkira fî aḥwâl al-mawt wa-umûr al-âkhira. Cairo: Maṭba‘at al-Halabî, 1400H.
Al-Qushayrî al-Nayshâbûrî, abu Ḥusayn Muslim b. al-Ḥajjâj. Al-Jâmi‘ al-Ṣaḥîḥ. 4 vols.
Beirut: Dâr al-Turâth al-‘Arabî. E-published by Maktabat al-Taqrîb, available online at
http://www.taghrib.org/library/book2.php?bi=820.
Rabbânî, Mohammad Hasan. Dânesh-e Derâyat al-Hadîs Hamrâh bâ nemouneh hâ-ye
Hadîsî va Feqhî, Mashhad: Dâneshgâh-e Oloum-e Eslâmî-ye Razavî, 1389 Solar hijra.
Racius, Egdunas. Multiple Nature of Islamic Da‘wa, Ph.D. Dissertation presented to the
Faculty of Arts at University of Helsinki (defended on the 23rd
of Oct. 2004), available
online at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/aasia/vk/racius/themulti.pdf.
al-Raḍî, Sayyid al-Sharîf, ed. Nahj al-Balâghah. 49th
ed. Translated into Persian by
Mohammad Dashtî. Qum, Iran: Amir al-Mo’menîn Publication, 2010.
Rahman, Fazlur. “Translating the Qur’ân.” Religion & Literature, vol. 20, No. 1, The
Literature of Islam (Spring 1988): 23-30.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
351
Radtke, Bernd. “Sufism in the 18th Century: An Attempt at a Provisional Appraisal.” Die
Welt des Islams, New Series, vol. 36, Issue 3, Islamic Enlightenment in the 18thCentury?
(Nov. 1996): 326-364.
al-Râzî, Muḥammad b. ‘Umar Fakhr al-Dîn. Mafâtîḥ al-Ghayb: al-Tafsîr al-Kabîr. 1st ed. 32
vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Fikr, 1982. Available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1372.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. “The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?” Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, vol. 72, Issue 02 (June 2009): 237-258.
Rippin, Andrew. “Review of Qur’ânic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern
Exegesis by Jane Dammen McAuliffe; Christ in Islam and Christianity: The
Representation of Jesus in the Qur’ân and the Classical Muslim Commentaries by Neal
Robinson.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London,
vol. 55, No. 2 (1992): 321-323.
____ “The Study of Tafsîr in the 21st Century: E-texts and their Scholarly Use.” MELA
Notes, No. 69/70 (Fall 1999-Spring 2000): 1-13.
Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. London: McMillan, Albany: State
University of NewYork Press, 1991.
Robson, J. Christ in Islam. London: J. Murray, 1992.
Rosen, Lawrence. Bargaining for Reality: The Construction of Social Relations in a Muslim
Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Ṣâ’ib, ‘Abd al Ḥamîd. Târikh al-Islâm al-Thiqâfî wa al-Syâsî: Maṣâr al-Islâm Ba‘d al-Rasûl
wa Nash’at al-Madhâhib. Tehran: Al-Ghadîr, 1417H.
al-Ṣadûq, abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. ‘Ali Shaykh. Man Lâ Yahḍaruhu al-Faqîh. 4 vols. Qum:
Mu’asseseh-ye-Enteshârât-e-Eslâmî, 1413H.
al-Ṣaghânî, Raḍî al-Dîn abu al-Faḍl Ḥasan b. Muḥammad. Al-‘Ibâb al-Zâkhir wa al-Lubâb
al-Fâkhir. 28 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Rashîd li al-Nashr, 1981. E-published by Shabakat al-
Mishkât al-Islâmiyyah, available online at
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=16&book=2044.
Saifullah, M. S. M. and Muḥammad Ghoniem. “Al-Ḥajjâj, Kitâb al-Maṣâḥif & Gilchrist.”
Islamic Awareness. E-published by Islamic awareness Organization, available online at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/GilHajjaj.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
352
Saint Augustine. E-book in the series of Spark Notes Philosophy Guide. NewYork: Spark
Publishing, 2005. Available online at http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/saint-augustine-
sparknotes-ditors/1008857708?ean=9781411491816&r=1&.
al-Ṣâliḥ, Ṣubḥî. Dirâsât fi Fiqh al-Lugha. Beirut: Dâr al-‘Ilm li al-Malâ’în, 1980.
Sammons, Jeffrey L. “Problems of Heine Reception: Some Considerations.” Monatshefte,
vol. 73, No. 4 (Winter 1981): 383-391.
Searle, Leroy. “New Criticism.” In The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism.
2nd
ed. Edited by Michael Groden, Martin Kreiswirth, and Imre Szeman. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
Sells, Michael. “Sound, Spirit, and Gender in Sûrat Al-Qadr.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society, vol. 111, No. 2 (April-June 1991): 239-259.
Sfar, Mondher. Le Coran est-il authentique? 3e édition. Paris: Édition Sfar, 2010. Available
online at
http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/sfar_mondher/coran_authentique/coran_authenti
que.pdf.
Shahrur, Muhammad. Al-Kitâb wa al-Qur’ân: Qirâ’ Mu‘âṣîra. Beirut: Shirkat al-Maṭbû‘ât li
al-Tawzi‘ wa al-Nashr, 2011. E-published by the author’s website, available online at
www.shahrour.org.
____ The Qur’ân, Morality and Critical Reason: the Essential Muhammad Shahrur.
Translated and edited by Andreas Christman. Leiden: Brill, 2009. E-published by the
author’s website, available online at www.shahrour.org.
Shâmelî, Abbâs Ali. “Jâygâh va Naqsh-e Enzâr va Tabshîr dar Nezâm-e Tarbyaty-e
Payâmbarân.” Ma‘refat, No 33, no date, no page number. Available online at
http://marifat.nashriyat.ir/node/1139.
al-Shanqîṭî, Muḥammad al-Amîn. Madhkarat Uṣûl al-Fiqh ‘alâ Rawḍat al-Nâẓir li al-
‘Allâmah ibn Quddâma. Jaddah: Dâr ‘Âlam al-Fawâ’id, 1426H. Available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=7007.
al-Sharbînî, Shams al-Dîn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Khaṭîb al-Sharbînî. Sirâj al-Munîr fi al-
I‘ânat ‘alâ Ba‘ḍ al-Ma‘ânî Kalâm Rabbanâ al-Ḥakîm al-Khabîr. 4 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2004. Available online at http://www.tafsir.net/vb/tafsir4864/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
353
Sherwood, Yvonne. “Binding-Unbinding: Divided Responses of Judaism, Christianty, and
Islam to the “Sacrifice” of Abraham’s Beloved Son.” Journal of the American Academy
of Religion, vol. 72, No. 4 (2004): 821-861.
al-Sijistânî, abu Dâwûd Sulaymân b. al-Ash‘ath. Kitâb al-Maṣâḥif. Edited by Muḥib al-Dîn
Wâ‘iẓ. 2 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Bashâr al-Islâmiyyah, 1936.
____ Nizhat al-Qulûb fi Gharib al-Qur’ân. Cairo: no publisher, 1921.
____Sunan Abu Dâwûd. Beirut: Dâr al-Risâlat al-‘Âlamiyyah, 2009. 6 vols. E-publsished by
Maktabat al-Waqfiyyah, available at http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=6140.
al-Sîstânî, Sayyid ‘Ali al-Ḥusaynî. Tawḍiḥ al-Masâ’il. E-published by the official web site of
the author at http://www.sistani.org/index.php?p=251364&id=48.
Sloyan, Gerard Stephen. The Crucifixion of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
Smith, Jane Idleman. “Concourse between the Living and the Dead in Islamic Eschatological
Literature.” History of Religions, vol. 19, No. 3 (Feb. 1980): 224-236.
____“The Understanding of Nafs and Rûḥ in Contemporary Muslim Considerations of the
Nature of Sleep and Death.” Muslim World vol. 49, no. 3 (July 1979): 151-62.
Smith, Jane Idleman and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad. The Islamic Understanding of Death and
Resurrection. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. “Scripture as Form and Concept: Their Emergence for the Western
World.” In Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective. Edited by
Miriam Levering, 29-57. Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 1989.
____ “The True Meaning of Scripture: An Empirical Historian’s Non Reductionist
Interpretation of the Qur’ân.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 11, No. 4
(July 1980): 487-505.
Soroush, Abdolkarîm. Qabz va Bast-e Teorik-e Shari’at. Tehran: Serât, 1999.
Soulen, Richard N. and R. Kendall. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd
ed. Revised and
expanded edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Stetkevych, Jaroslav. “Arabic Hermeneutical Terminology: Paradox and the Production of
Meaning.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 48, No. 2 (April 1989): 81-96.
Stetkevych, Suzanne P. “Toward a Redefinition of ‘Badî‘’ Poetry.” Journal of Arabic
Literature 12 (1981): 3-29.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
354
Stewart, Devin J. “Notes on Medieval and Modern Emendations of the Qur’ân.” In The
Qur’ân in Its Historical Context. Edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds, 225.281. London and
New York: Routledge, 2008.
Struthers Malbon, Elizabeth. “Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Contextual Meaning.”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 51, No. 2 (June 1983): 207-230.
Stümpel-Hatami, Isabel. “Christianity as Described by Persian Muslims.” In Muslim
Perceptions of Other Religions: A Historical Survey. Edited by Jacques Waardenburg,
227-239. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999.
Sulemen, fahmida, ed. Word of God, Art of Man: The Qur’ân and its Creative Expressions.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
al-Suyûṭî, Jalâl al-Dîn ‘Abd al-Raḥmân. Al-Itqân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân. 4 vols. Cairo: al-
Maṭba‘at al-Azhariyyah al-Miṣriyyah, 1974.
____ Bughyat al-Wu‘ât fi Ṭabaqât al-Lughawiyyîn wa al-Nuḥât. Edited by Muḥammad abu
al-Faḍl Ibrâhîm. 2 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-Fikr, 1979.
____ Al-Durr al-Manthûr fi Tafsîr bi al-Ma’thûr. 8 vols. Beirut: Dâr al-Fikr, 1993. Available
online at http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=6&book=466.
____ Tadrîb al-Râwi fi Sharḥ Taqrîb al-Nawâwî. Beirut: Dâr Ṭibâ‘, 2009.
Syamsuddin, Sahiron. “Muḥkam and Mutashâbih: An Analytical Study of al-Ṭabarî’s and al-
Zamakhsharî’s Interpretations of Q.3:7.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, vol. 1, No. 1
(1999): 63-79.
al-Ṭabarî, abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarîr. Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân. 12 vols.
Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1997. Available online at www.almeshkat.net.
____ Jâmi‘ al-Bayân ‘an Ta’wîl Ây al-Qur’ân. 16 vols. Edited by Maḥmûd Muḥammad
Shâkir and Aḥmad Muḥammad Shâkir. 2nd
ed. Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah, no date.
____ Jâmi‘ al-Bayân fi Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân. 24 vols. Edited by Aḥmad Muḥammad Shâkir.
Riyadh: Mu’assisat al-Risâlat, 2000.
al-Ṭabarsî, abu ‘Ali Faḍl b. Ḥasan. Majma‘ al-Bayân fî Tafsîr al-Qur’ân. 10 vols. Beirut:
Muassissat al-A‘lamî li al-Maṭbû‘ât, 1415H. Available online at http://www.alseraj.net/a-
k/quran/mbtq/mb.htm.
al-Ṭabâṭabâ’î, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Al-Mizân fi Tafsîr al-Qur’ân, 20vols. Beirut: Mu’assisat
al-A‘lamî li al-Maṭbû‘ât, 1974. Available online at http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
355
____ Nahâyat al-Ḥikma. 16th
ed. Qom: Nashr-e Eslâmi, 1422H.
Tabâtabâ’î Yazdî, Seyyed Kazem. Ashenâyee bâ Târîkh va Manâbe’-e Hadîs. Qum: Hâjar,
1380 Solar hijra.
al-Tha‘labî, abu Muḥammad b. ‘Âshûr. Al-Kashf wa al-Bayân. 10 vols. Beirût: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-
Turâth al-‘Arabî, 2002. Available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3548.
al-Tirmidhî, Muḥammad b. ‘Isâ . Jâmi‘ al-Tirmidhî. 1st ed. 6 vols. Edited by Bashshâr
‘Awwâd Ma‘rûf. Dâr al-Gharb al-Islâmî, 1996. Available online at
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1765.
Tottoli, Roberto. Biblical Prophets in the Qur’ân and the Muslim Literature. Richmond,
Surrey: Curzon, 2002.
____ “Origin and Use of the Term Isrâ’îliyyât in Muslim Literature.” Arabica, T. 46, Fasc. 2
(1999): 193-210.
Tritton, Arthur S. “Man, Nafs, Rûḥ, ‘Aql.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, vol. 34, No. 3 (1971): 491-495.
al-Ṭurayḥî, Fakhr al-Dîn. Mu‘jam Majma‘ al-Baḥrayn. 2nd
ed. Tehran: Enteshârât-e
Mortazavî, no date. Available online at
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=275365.
al-Ṭûsî, abu Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Ḥasan. Al-Istibṣâr Fî Mâ Ikhtulifa min al-Akhbâr. 4 vols.
Tehran: Dâr al-kutub al-Islâmiyyah, 1390H.
____ Tahdhîb al-Aḥkâm. 10 vols. Edited by Ali Akbar Ghaffâri, Tehran: Dâr al-kutub al-
Islâmiyyah, 1390H.
____ Al-Tibyân. 10 vols. Edited by Aḥmad Ḥabîb Qaṣîr al-‘Âmilî. Beirut: Dâr Iḥyâ’ al-
Turâth al-‘Arabî, 1409H.
al-Tustarî. Tafsîr al-Tustari. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1423H. Available online at
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=160213.
Uddin, Sufia.“Mystical Journey or Mysogynist Assault? Al-Qushayrî’s Interpretation of
Sulaikhâ’s attempted Seduction of Yusuf.” Available online at
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jis/article/viewFile/39957/54920.
Uysal, Muammer, ed. Kur’an-i Kerim Ve Satir arasi Kelime Meali. Istanbul: Kervan Yayin-
Dagitim, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
356
Vaglieri, Laura Veccia. An Interpretation of Islam. Translated from Italian by Dr. Aldo
Caselli. New Delhi: Good Word Books, 2004.
Waardenburg, Jacques. “Islamic Studies and the History of Religions: An Evaluation.” In
Mapping Islamic Studies: Geneology, continuity and Change. Edited by Azim Nanji,
181-219. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997.
al-Wâqidî, Abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad b. ‘Umar. Kitâb al-Maghâzî li al-Wâqidî. 3rd
ed. 3
vols. Edited by M. Jones. No place of publication: ‘Âlam al-Kutub, 1984. Available
online at http://archive.org/details/magwaq.
al-Wâqidî, Muḥammad b. Sa‘d Kâtib. Kitâb al-Ṭabaqât al-Kabîr. 8 vols. Cairo: Dâr al-
Taḥrîr, 1968. Available online at
http://www.al-mostafa.info/data/arabic/depot3/gap.php?file=i001129.pdf.
Weil, Gustav. Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in den Koran. Bielefeld: Velhagen und
Klasing, 1844. Available online at
http://www.archive.org/details/historischkriti00weilgoog.
Weil, Gustav and Frank K. Sanders and Harry W. Dunning. “An Introduction to the Qur’ân
I.” The Biblical World, vol. 5, No. 3 (March 1895): 181-191.
Weil Gustav. “An Introduction to the Qur’ân II.” The Biblical World, vol. 5, No. 4 (April
1895): 273-286.
____ “An Introduction to the Qur’ân III.” The Biblical World, vol. 5, No. 5 (May 1895): 343-
359.
____ “An Introduction to the Qur’ân V.” The Biblical World, vol. 6, No. 1 (July 1895): 26-
38.
____ “An Introduction to the Qur’ân VI.” The Biblical World, vol. 6, No. 2 (Aug. 1895):
105-114.
____ “An Introduction to the Qur’ân IV.” The Biblical World, vol. 5, No. 6 (June 1895): 438-
447.
Welch, Alford T. “Introduction-Problems and Perspectives.” In Studies in Qur’ân and Tafsir.
Edited by Alford T. Welch. Journal of the American Academy of Religion (thematic
issue), No. 47 (1979): 620- 630.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
357
Wheeler, Brannon M. “The Jewish Origins of Qur’ân 18:65-82? Re-examining Arent Jan
Wensinck’s Theory.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 118, No. 2 (April-
June 1998): 153-171.
Widengren, Geo. Muhammad, the Apostle of God, and His Ascension. King and Saviour
series. Upsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1955.
Wild, Stefan, ed. The Qur’ân as Text. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Wood, Allen W. “Review of Sources of the Self by Charles Taylor.” Philosophical Review,
vol. 101, No. 3 (July 1992): 621-626.
Ye’or, Bat. The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Granbury, NJ: Associated
University Press, 1985.
Yusuf Ali, Abdullah. The Qur’an: Translation. Elmhurst, New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an
Inc, 2002.
Zam, Mohammad Ali. Jomhour-e Jahani-ye Shi’e: Kolliyât-e Mohandesi-ye- Farhangi.
Tehran: Ketab-e Jomhour, 2006.
al-Zamakhsharî, abu al-Qâsim Maḥmûd b. ‘Umar al-khawârizmî. Tafsîr al-Kashshâf. 6 vols.
Riyadh: Maktabat ‘Abikân, 1998. Available online at
http://www.emtiaz.net/vb/showthread.php?t=24194.
al-Zarkashî, abu ‘Abdullâh Muḥammad Badr al-Dîn. Al-Burhân fi ‘Ulûm al-Qur’ân. 4 vols.
Beirut: Dâr al-Ma‘rifa, 1990. Available online at
http://www.imanhearts.com/mobiles.php?action=show&id=2781.
Zebiri, Kate. “Towards a Rhetorical Criticism of the Qur’an.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies,
vol. 5, No. 2 (2003): 95-120.
Zia, Miraj ul-Islam. “Artistic Beauties of the Qur’an: A Stylistic Analysis of Sûrat al-Yûsuf
and Sûrat al-Naml.” Research Journal RJIC published by Sheikh Zayed Centre for
Islamic and Arabic Studies at University of Peshawar. vol. 1, no 3 (1991): 1-37.
al-Zubaydî, Murtaḍâ. Tâj al-‘Arûs min Jawâhir al-Qâmûs. 20 vols. Kuwait: Maṭba‘at
Ḥukûmat al-Kuwait, 1973. Available online at http://archive.org/details/alhelawy09.